2019: Britain's new air disaster

[JohnP25]

Steve, you talking about the Iranian Delta Wave UAV (Abqaiq) that flies 400 miles?

Looks like a foam delta covered with fibre glass having a large turbine.

J

[Martin_K]

A couple more photos.

Links to the full size images on arstechnica.net;

Photo 1

Photo 2

Edited By Martin_K on 25/09/2019 17:00:52

[Robin Colbourne]

The engines on those deltas in the foreground may be the Iranian Serat 01 Wankel engine, which bears a striking similarity to the AR731 Aerial target engine from UAV engines of Shenstone.

Edited By Robin Colbourne on 25/09/2019 22:36:43

[Cuban8]

Posted by Steve J on 25/09/2019 15:07:47:

C8, What would you call the delta in the photo that I posted on the previous page?

Steve

First thing that comes into my head would be to label it a 'military drone'.

[Don Fry]

Robin, curious, but if the engine bears a string similarity to a AR731 Ariel target engine why is not an AR731.

[Bob Cotsford]

Posted by Cuban8 on 26/09/2019 09:19:13:

Posted by Steve J on 25/09/2019 15:07:47:

C8, What would you call the delta in the photo that I posted on the previous page?

Steve

First thing that comes into my head would be to label it a 'military drone'.

First thing that came into my head was 'I wonder if it has retracts? Would it fit in my car?' Prop powered delta, common enough RC model layout.

[Martin_K]

Posted by Bob Cotsford on 26/09/2019 10:07:49:

First thing that came into my head was 'I wonder if it has retracts? .....

Don't know. It may be designed as a 'single mission' vehicle. Landing with a nose up attitude, tall undercarriage would be required to keep the pusher prop clear of the ground.

On the other hand there appear to be a lot of inspection panels, as if for maintenance.

[Bob Cotsford]

Servo and data access panels and the like I expect, Martin. My point was that at first glance it could be a model likely to be seen at any model club, nothing about it screams 'military' except that it contained an internal warhead in this instance.

Unfortunately model, military and less savoury usage technologies have largely merged with autonomous flight control systems, GPS fencing et al becoming more common on trainers and other fixed wing models as well as on multirotors. This point has been debated here and elsewhere and no concensus can be reached even amongst modellers so I can see no workable alternative but for the authorities to lump all UAVs together.

The statute side of things was done and dusted years ago, all that remains is for the authorities to define the processes and costs. The BBC repeating this is just a measure of how much they rely on repeats to keep new program (and research) costs down.

[Robin Colbourne]

Posted by Don Fry on 26/09/2019 09:42:35:

Robin, curious, but if the engine bears a string similarity to a AR731 Ariel target engine why is not an AR731.

To comply with ITAR regulations you would probably need and end user certificate to buy the AR731, which makes it unlikely, but not out of question as there are always people who will find a way round such things. As the Iranians were already making a very similar engine, it is more likely to be theirs, although the Chinese make the MDR-208, which again looks similiar.

[John Bisset]

Meantime I see the Gatwick Police are taking a leaf from others in officialdom - carefully leaving out important bits of information in a report to give a somewhat biased impression.

The report into the 'drone' incident at Gatwick carefully sidesteps the fact that no hard evidence exists of any unauthorised drone being active there. Only 'eye-witness' accounts, despite many man-hours of effort. Lats information I had was that the only proven drone sightings were of police drones, searching

Eye witnesses are notoriously poor witnesses. We mean well but human brains immediately interpret what we see and then find it hard to challenge that interpretation. As a pilot myself I also know how easy it is to be fooled by perspective and distance. Honest reports no doubt, but no evidence. Strange how that is left out. Assertions, no hard facts.

Nonetheless this sort of dubious stuff is being used a a stick to beat us with. Hey ho.

[Nigel R]

And you would hope the police were trained to avoid such bias in witness accounts.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Don Fry]

Posted by Nigel R on 27/09/2019 12:08:24:

And you would hope the police were trained to avoid such bias in witness accounts.

Nope, the rules of evidence are known, but what does a copper know about drones Why should a copper know much about drones or perspective or distance perception.

[John Bisset]

Posted by Don Fry on 27/09/2019 15:16:26:

Posted by Nigel R on 27/09/2019 12:08:24:

And you would hope the police were trained to avoid such bias in witness accounts.

Nope, the rules of evidence are known, but what does a copper know about drones Why should a copper know much about drones or perspective or distance perception.

Quite right - there is no good reason an average copper should have to know anything about drones. I'd hope most would have at least some idea of human behaviour - and hence how human beings perceive things. After, being a copper is all about working with people, for people (supposedly)

Those looking into this at a higher level ought to have such knowledge, and the senior officer who commented in the report about this being a serious criminal act etc., should at least have included a caveat that no hard evidence was found. Pontificating has so much more impact than going for factual clarity, of course !

[Don Fry]

John, the pontificator in charge, stick a murder in front of him, will quickly get 40 or so people, with various strange skills together, briefed, teamed, deployed, progress checked, measured against a dozen best practice yardsticks, while eating a pizza.

Stick Gatwick in front of him, and he becomes a floundering, incompetent manager. Inventing it on the hoof. And when did you last see a manager, drowning, say, I can't swim. It was due to the unexpected wet nature of water is the cry.

I am not a cynic.

[John Bisset]

True enough Don. Way outside his comfort zone, fairly clearly and quite understandably.

It irritates that he then goes on to describe this as a serious crime when it appears no clear evidence exists of a crime - that isn't clever, it is playing to the gallery. (I think we are well aware just how readily certain elements of our national press grab any chance to be offended, 'concerned' and 'disturbed' by things they don't understand ! 

To my mind this sort of behaviour diminishes the reputation of the police generally.

[Don Fry]

John, probably correct, it does not enhance reputations. But in my experience all organisations play to the gallery, often an internal one. I also read, serious crime committed.

Now a cash van gets held up, and the perpetrators invite the crew to open the doors, or the puppy gets it. That, in technical terms, is a clue. We deduce a serious crime has happened. Robbery, Section 8, Theft act 1968, and being nasty to puppies, ask the RSPCA, not my competence.

Here we have sightings, of between credible and not, depending on the point of view taken by everyone involved. And the author assumes. ASS makes a fool of U and ME.

Not knocking the fuzz, all organisations fall into the trap when performing suboptimally. Not easy to say, not my finest hour boss. And bosses ain't good at saying, arr well, if we learnt summat.

[J D 8]

The only proven "crime" in the Gatwick incident was the two day detainment of an innocent couple and their harassment by the gutter press.