RQ-170 footage released

[SOHEIL]

 

[gambit]

well f-16 can do many thing and have many system that RQ-170 don't have , one of them is an Emergency Power Unit .unless you can prove me wrong.
and please stop this BS about controlled landing in Enemy territory. That plane made a controlled landing , but the problem is that it thought it is, its mother base not somewhere in middle of nowhere in Tabas Desert and it was impossible for IRGC find it sooner than US satellites.

about UAV Glide ratio well non of them were a flying wing without any power , and better model for gliding is sort of straight wing

Am going to try to get you to understand this issue which is apparently too complex for you...

First...Glide ratio...

Air Transat Flight 236 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thirteen minutes later, engine no. 1 also flamed out at while the aircraft was still approximately 65 nautical miles (120 km) from Lajes Air Base.

Summary...Air Transat 236 lost the starboard engine at 217 km out, then lost port engine at 120 km out. And this A330-200 glided to safety with only busted tires, not human lives lost. Most people find it hard to believe but large airliners actually have a better glide ratio than small general aviation aircrafts like the Cessna single prop jobbers.

As for our UAV under discussion...It make eminent sense to have battery backup power in the event of engine power loss. Because our UAV is mostly wing and practically no fuselage, there will be very little drag induced like that from a common fuselage, which will give our UAV very good glide ratio. Air Transat 236 begins descent from about 40,000 ft and glided to safety. Our UAV with its flying wing design and from similar altitude can easily double or even triple that glide distance by the A330, and the RQ's operating altitude is between 40-50,000 ft.

So when I mentioned controlled landing when the UAV is in a glide because of engine power loss, it was meant to be when the aircraft is still under human control. You are confused here. Just because there is engine power loss, that does not equate to loss of human contact via data links. So if there is battery backup to power the flight control system, the ground operator can still control the aircraft to a safe landing IN FRIENDLY TERRITORY or towards said friendly territory.

I was not talking about controlled landing in Iran.

You guys were.

Christ Almighty...!!! What happened to logical thought processes...??? Joseph of Cupertino is supposedly the patron saint of pilots. He must be laughing his butt off in heaven.

Finally...How about the possibility that our UAV was genuinely lost because of technical reasons and Iran just happened to find it in the desert after a few days? For a sensitive mission like eyeballing Iran, if we never said anything about these flights, why should we say anything if one UAV was lost? And let everyone know we have been checking out Iran and possibly even violated Iranian airspace?

So if some Iranian troopers stumbled upon the crashed UAV in the desert, do you really think Iran is going to say the truth?

 

[Hack-Hook]

and some people still claim about crash landing or even free fall

 

[Hack-Hook]

Am going to try to get you to understand this issue which is apparently too complex for you...

First...Glide ratio...

Air Transat Flight 236 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Summary...Air Transat 236 lost the starboard engine at 217 km out, then lost port engine at 120 km out. And this A330-200 glided to safety with only busted tires, not human lives lost. Most people find it hard to believe but large airliners actually have a better glide ratio than small general aviation aircrafts like the Cessna single prop jobbers.

As for our UAV under discussion...It make eminent sense to have battery backup power in the event of engine power loss. Because our UAV is mostly wing and practically no fuselage, there will be very little drag induced like that from a common fuselage, which will give our UAV very good glide ratio. Air Transat 236 begins descent from about 40,000 ft and glided to safety. Our UAV with its flying wing design and from similar altitude can easily double or even triple that glide distance by the A330, and the RQ's operating altitude is between 40-50,000 ft.

So when I mentioned controlled landing when the UAV is in a glide because of engine power loss, it was meant to be when the aircraft is still under human control. You are confused here. Just because there is engine power loss, that does not equate to loss of human contact via data links. So if there is battery backup to power the flight control system, the ground operator can still control the aircraft to a safe landing IN FRIENDLY TERRITORY or towards said friendly territory.

I was not talking about controlled landing in Iran.

You guys were.

Christ Almighty...!!! What happened to logical thought processes...??? Joseph of Cupertino is supposedly the patron saint of pilots. He must be laughing his butt off in heaven.

Finally...How about the possibility that our UAV was genuinely lost because of technical reasons and Iran just happened to find it in the desert after a few days? For a sensitive mission like eyeballing Iran, if we never said anything about these flights, why should we say anything if one UAV was lost? And let everyone know we have been checking out Iran and possibly even violated Iranian airspace?

So if some Iranian troopers stumbled upon the crashed UAV in the desert, do you really think Iran is going to say the truth?

you can have controlled landing only if you have access to the UAV and Airbus have some turbine that provide energy for hydraulic system this one don't have that . airbus is stable design this one is not stable . more importantly for optimal gliding its healthier to maintain the level of both wings and this plan just simply can't do that without power and also it even can't keep the wings leveled while trying to make a turn so basically if it loose engine its doomed to fly in straight line even if you put some sort of emergency power source in it (which this plane incidentally unlike a commercial airliner don't have it).

 

[500]

and some people still claim about crash landing or even free fall

So far Iran did not provide a single evidence that it was not a crash. Broken wings strongly increase possibility that it was a crash.

 

[Hyperion]

Any conclusive proof that the purported video is genuine?

 

[Abii]

Any conclusive proof that the purported video is genuine?

lmfao

No the video is fake. We hired a team of American actors and actresses and built an exact replica of an American base as well as a replica of Afghanistan in the middle of an Iranian desert and told the actors and actresses to get busy. We then filmed this base in the middle of this new Afghanistan and released it.

I think you left your brain somewhere. Go look for it before you lose it forever.

 

[SOHEIL]

So far Iran did not provide a single evidence that it was not a crash. Broken wings strongly increase possibility that it was a crash.

STFU !? Broken wings !!!

trooooooooooooooll

 

[Oublious]

so whats the story of showing pictures?

 

[tyrant]

I dont know how Iran got it but I am pretty sure it is almost intact.While you are talking here, Russia and China are working 24/7 on the almost intact drone.

 

[Takaavar]

So far Iran did not provide a single evidence that it was not a crash. Broken wings strongly increase possibility that it was a crash.

There's a hell of differences between broken wings and the wings you are seeing in the pics, which is obviously cut which was needed for transportation.

 

[Oublious]

always bad quality pictures. somebody import some high quality digital cams to iran. maybe the plane is a dummy?

 

[Abii]

always bad quality pictures. somebody import some high quality digital cams to iran. maybe the plane is a dummy?

Einstein, the Americans confirmed that it's real and Obama even asked for it back.

The guy wakes up from hibernation in his cave in la la land, comes here and leaves a dumb comment with his broken English without even checking the story and leaves.

sigh, this site man, troll central I tell you.

 

[Abii]

There's a hell of differences between broken wings and the wings you are seeing in the pics, which is obviously cut which was needed for transportation.

Here's what I can't understand: how can a 4-5 ton giant machine with a 20 feet wing span crash and then lose both its wings in perfectly symmetrical locations in relation to the main body of the plane and in perfectly straight lines? Meanwhile no other damage is done to this 5 ton elephant! So to recap, 5 tons of metal crashes from space and its wings on both sides come off in perfect symmetry in relation to the body of the plane and in a straight line to boot!? Where's the rest of the damage????? 5000 KG of metal doesn't fall off the sky and look factory new.

500 just wants to argue. Nothing she says makes any sort of sense. I feel sorry for her.

 

[Saleem]

ok iran is ready release its 5th generation drone IQ(!) 5170........be ready everyone...[I for iran Q for god knows what [a la RQ] and 5 for 5th gen ]

ok iran is ready release its 5th generation drone IQ(!) 5170........be ready everyone...[I for iran Q for god knows what [a la RQ] and 5 for 5th gen ]