I believe the record for RC altitude was somewhere around 27000 feet back in the 70's.
Here is a video of someone reaching 4391m (16272ft) with an FPV RC plane.
I'm still not saying that this is what happened but it is possible.
*dang Sakari, you beat me to it!
BTW, cool hobby.
It looks like he got up to 4921 m , before the video went blurry ! But In the report the Pilot said it was at 8,000 feet MSL,and In Denver which is at 5,000 feet to begine with ? I would Love to know the real details ! Great Video SLave ! Have you ever flown ?
If you don't believe the sun will rise
Stand alone and greet the coming night
In the last remaining light -Audioslave
Posted 20 May 2012 - 08:23 PM
DONTEATUS, on 20 May 2012 - 08:07 PM, said:
It looks like he got up to 4921 m , before the video went blurry ! But In the report the Pilot said it was at 8,000 feet MSL,and In Denver which is at 5,000 feet to begine with ? I would Love to know the real details ! Great Video SLave ! Have you ever flown ?
Hey D, I've never piloted anything other than the occasional toy RC plane or flight sim type stuff. I would love to fly some of these RC planes though, and with the FPV setup I bet it would be amazing! Seems to be a rather expensive hobby though, at least initially.
"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark
"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman
You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
Posted 20 May 2012 - 08:33 PM
Slave2Fate, on 20 May 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:
Hey D, I've never piloted anything other than the occasional toy RC plane or flight sim type stuff. I would love to fly some of these RC planes though, and with the FPV setup I bet it would be amazing! Seems to be a rather expensive hobby though, at least initially.
Wanna buy mine?
Check out this site, it is the premier place if you want to get into " fpv " and such.....
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
Posted 20 May 2012 - 09:46 PM
Slave2Fate, on 20 May 2012 - 08:41 PM, said:
Sounds awesome! Like I said though, at least for now that little package is a bit out of my allotted 'toy' expenditure range.
Mine too, as said I do not have the FPV hardware......
Thing is, I need it for this hobby....At around 500 to 1000 feet, I can not tell if the plane is coming or going, will turn left when I should turn right....I talked to someone a while back on a RC forum whom had the same issue...He went to FPV flying, and said it is awesome!!!!
Needless to say, my plane has not been off the ground much, maybe 10 times.....And almost this morning.
Indeed this is growing way beyond a entry level hobbie, Ive seen tens of thousands of dollars being spent on new and bigger machines. All over the world there building the most amazing craft.
Some are quite large. But I think the pilot actually saw a military unit . Maybe Looking for the bad guys ?
Where`s Jack Bauer need him !
If you don't believe the sun will rise
Stand alone and greet the coming night
In the last remaining light -Audioslave
Posted 20 May 2012 - 10:35 PM
DONTEATUS, on 20 May 2012 - 10:27 PM, said:
Indeed this is growing way beyond a entry level hobbie, Ive seen tens of thousands of dollars being spent on new and bigger machines. All over the world there building the most amazing craft.
Some are quite large. But I think the pilot actually saw a military unit . Maybe Looking for the bad guys ?
Where`s Jack Bauer need him !
True, it may have been a law enforcement UAV (not sure about military though), right now there isn't enough information to say one way or the other yet. I don't have a death grip on the RC plane theory but it is still on the table according to the info we have.
"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark
"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman
You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave
ColoradoParanormal, on 19 May 2012 - 04:53 AM, said:
Thank you! Sorry it took so long for me to reply as well! lol Work was insane today and then I was checking out a Jet Charter company (I've never chartered and really lost on that whole subject) Anyway, I believe the only real plausible object that this could be is a Law Enforcement drone as has been discussed. I don't believe RC Craft can fly that high. It could be a amatuer rocket enthusiast rocket but, the FAA would know right away if this is actualy the cause due to the FAA having guidlines for what they deem as high powered rocketry.
Early in the morning Sept. 11, one of the team’s "autonomous" miniature airplanes reached an estimated altitude of 2,177 meters (7,142 feet), creating an unofficial record. The flight set the mark for aircraft in the 5-kilograms-or-less weight class that use electronics and software to fly by themselves rather than by remote control.
That is in the 5kg or less class, the overall official record is about 11,000 feet according to this link.
The record attempt was made by a group of graduate students who took a course this spring in the Aero/Astro Department at Stanford University. I was the teaching assistant for the course. This year the goal for the course was to design a small UAV to beat the remote control altitude record (~11, 000 ft). There were four teams of 4-5 students that had 10 weeks to go from a blank sheet of paper to a successful vehicle. The autopilot and propulsion system were provided, but the teams had to write their own control software and design/build the vehicles. The only sensor allowed was GPS (+ an barometric pressure sensor for the record attempt).
You will find RC forums discussing altitude, and the attempts made. Usually a long way short of the 8,000 mark, but it is definitely possible.
If it was a law enforcement drone, I think we will definitely see more on this.
Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research. There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs.
If you don't believe the sun will rise
Stand alone and greet the coming night
In the last remaining light -Audioslave
Posted 20 May 2012 - 10:52 PM
One thing I find interesting is that nothing showed up on radar, but does that mean they were only looking for a transponder signal or was the object to small to show up on radar? RC planes obviously don't have transponders (don't know about law enforcement/military UAV's) however would the smaller size keep them from showing up?
"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark
"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman
You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave
One thing I find interesting is that nothing showed up on radar, but does that mean they were only looking for a transponder signal or was the object to small to show up on radar? RC planes obviously don't have transponders (don't know about law enforcement/military UAV's) however would the smaller size keep them from showing up?
I think that will come out in the investigation, it depends on the type of RADAR used, and it's wavelength, it also could be an RC modeled on stealth aircraft which could give none, or an unrecognisable return.
Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research. There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
Posted 20 May 2012 - 11:18 PM
Here are a few replies on RC plane forums regarding RC planes and radar....
Not likely - they are not going to present much of a primary radar target, and ATC radar is not really using the "echo" of the primary return anyway.
ATC radar is almost completely dependent on the target having a transponder that replies to a ATC radar.
. In other words, ATC radar is not really looking at the "echo" of it's own transmission, but is looking for the replies of a device on the target. The transponder is able to reply with a unique code and other information, including altitude that allows ATC to positively identify a return. Anti-collision equipment on air craft also listen for the transponder replies of other aircraft to provide collision avoidance.
Unless the RC plane has a transponder, it's not going to get any attention from ATC.
R/C aircraft are pretty small but they could be seen on a Military Radar unit (Aircraft Signature) if they were actually looking for it. They will no way interfere with any signals as R/C Aircraft are restricted to certain Radio Frequencies just for R/C Aircraft. The Federal Aviation Association has requirements for R/C Aircraft fields to be a certain distance from any aircraft path so that the real planes couldn't actually get close enough. It is possible to fly high enough with a powered or sailplane Aircraft to hit a real aircraft but it would never be something an R/C Pilot would ever want to do. Nobody wants to lose a toy/hobby Aircraft and maybe risk taking the life of real people on board a full sized aircraft. Source(s):
Years with the AMA flying R/C aircraft, R/C cars, trucks and even R/C Boats
first of all, most of those planes are made of fiberglass (effectively a stealth)
then, you need the PRIMARY radar coverage and access to its data.
larger RC planes could probably trigger an "unknown traffic" warning.
The standard radars have troubles picking the real sail planes.
edit> someone seems to misunderstand my answer. following are the basics of radiolocation:
radiolocation is divided into two technologies of information gathering, 1. primary and 2. secondary.
most todays ATC rely onf secondary information, gained through aircraft transponders. transponders extend the range of the ground based radars when compared to the primary systems ( solely dependant on detection of reflected radio waves from the source)
the RC planes do NOT have transponders. hence, they cannot be picked up by the secondary radars at all. they can only appear on screens with data from primary locators (being shown in the composite RL image, too)
However these RC planes are too small and manufactured from materials that prevent effective reflection of the radar waves. because of that, their signature is marginal.
As said above, the primary locators have troubles picking the targets - large sailplanes. these have the wing span about 60 ft and still are effectively INVISIBLE unless they are transponder equipped.
I think with the popularity of FPV, and the cheaper kits coming out, this was a RC plane, and a very irresponsible pilot.......
If you don't believe the sun will rise
Stand alone and greet the coming night
In the last remaining light -Audioslave
Posted 20 May 2012 - 11:18 PM
psyche101, on 20 May 2012 - 10:51 PM, said:
If it was a law enforcement drone, I think we will definitely see more on this.
Especially with a lack of radar signature. There is no reason any surveillance drone should be invisible to radar if it is used domestically. This incident is a prime example of the kinds of things that could happen without a transponder or ACAS system for drones.
"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark
"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman
You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
Posted 20 May 2012 - 11:32 PM
Well hell.......Drones can not fly over populated areas like this.......yet.......
Congress OK’s drone flights over the U.S.
JOSEPH STRAW
Tuesday, February 07, 2012
While the drones are cheaper than manned craft, they lack the redundancies and hands-on control that add safety, thus restricting operations to sparsely populated areas.
The Department of Homeland Security has flown its small fleet of drones along the country’s northern and southern borders.
Manned Air Force jets including A-10 Warthogs and F-16 Falcons regularly trained over Adirondack Park in the past. Park advocates welcome the propeller-driven drone alternative because they fly quietly at high altitude.
The bill authorizes $63.4 billion for the FAA over four years, including about $11 billion for the air traffic system and its modernization.
The bill, headed to President Obama’s desk for his signature, paves the way for a U.S. air traffic control system switch from ground-based radar to more accurate GPS-based tracking of airliners................
If you don't believe the sun will rise
Stand alone and greet the coming night
In the last remaining light -Audioslave
Posted 20 May 2012 - 11:50 PM
Sakari, on 20 May 2012 - 11:32 PM, said:
Well hell.......Drones can not fly over populated areas like this.......yet.......
Congress OK’s drone flights over the U.S.
JOSEPH STRAW
Tuesday, February 07, 2012
While the drones are cheaper than manned craft, they lack the redundancies and hands-on control that add safety, thus restricting operations to sparsely populated areas.
The Department of Homeland Security has flown its small fleet of drones along the country’s northern and southern borders.
Manned Air Force jets including A-10 Warthogs and F-16 Falcons regularly trained over Adirondack Park in the past. Park advocates welcome the propeller-driven drone alternative because they fly quietly at high altitude.
The bill authorizes $63.4 billion for the FAA over four years, including about $11 billion for the air traffic system and its modernization.
The bill, headed to President Obama’s desk for his signature, paves the way for a U.S. air traffic control system switch from ground-based radar to more accurate GPS-based tracking of airliners................
That seems to put a thorn in the side of the law enforcement UAV theory although I wouldn't put it past law enforcement officials to disregard policy in an effort to show a drop in crime rates or an increase in the number of arrests attributable to the drones operation specifically. Sort of an example of 'it's easier to ask forgiveness that to ask permission' kind of thing.
"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark
"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman
You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave
3
Slave2Fate, on 20 May 2012 - 06:11 PM, said:
Unless they fill out a NOTAM. Which apprently does happen when going for records or such.
