Why do you think it will have same characteristics as the Predator? It will not...

It's a propeller driven plane. Will it fly as fast as a jet? No.

:D
P-51 is a propeller-driven plane. It has max speed of 700+ kph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_P-51_Mustang

Suicideking, 300km/h was slow even for WWII propeller planes, "fast as a jet" is about 900 or more km/h.

Ok, simply saying "propeller plane" was dumb. What i meant was:

Ihis is still a drone! Small little propeller at the back, with a small engine. Again, the Predator tops out at 217 km/hr as a reference point.

2035 doesn't imply magic, you know. :P

p.s. Almost all items, vehicles, weaponry and tech in Arma 3 is present day tech, just re-named to avoid licensing issues.

Except, again, the Greyhawk is not the Predator. I wasn't even referring to 2035, by the way. This kind of UAV is entirely possible now, with all the characteristics. Where is "magic"?

There's no fundamental aerodynamic difference between UAV and a piloted plane.

We would need to see more concrete facts regarding similar and other UAVs first.

The Greyhawk is, apparently based off of the YABHON-R. It's max cruise speed is 240 km/h, so yeah, it's a bit of in the game.

Source: http://www.adcom-systems.com/ENG/UAV/YAHBON-R/Overview.html

There isn't any fundamental aerodynamic difference, true, but there's a huge difference in engine size (and power output), propeller size (and the amount of thrust it can generate), weight (and thus power-to-weight ratio), materials, etc.

You have to account for all of that.

For example, if i use the information provided by AD2001 (thanks!) and compare the YABHON-R to say, a Spitfire, you're comparing a 100 hp engine to a 1000 to 2000 hp Rolls-Royce engine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire#Specifications_.28Spitfire_Mk_Vb.29

The Darter, for example, is perfectly believable (although i think it becomes too stable when hovering), this is a bit of a hard sell.

However, maybe they could just make a smaller, yet powerful engine in the next 20 years.

I'm fine with limiting it's max speed to around 250 km/h, though.

True, they could. But physics won't change...hence my comment on "magic".

I mean, consider the Spitfire...that was over 70 years ago. Correct me if i'm wrong, but i don't think modern day turboprops go much faster than the Spitfire's 630 km/hr.

(i did a bit of quick reading on wikipedia, it seems propeller aircraft are limited to about 700-750 Km/hr, after which they lose efficiency).

So yeah, i'm with you on the 250 Km/h thing. That would be reasonable, imo.

EDIT: Just saw the Mustang article Dark linked to, that flies at 700 Km/h, so basically in all those years, we're still at the same speed for propellers. So if i had to make a safe assumption about propeller/engine tech in the next 20 years, i'd limit the Greyhawk to 250 km/h at the most.

You're wrong.

Hint: "I feel it should be so" has nothing to do with physics.

The reason why propeller engines cant go past subsonic speed is because the change in air that comes with it ends up in breaking the blades.

the reason why this doesn't happen with jets its because there are no external blades taking almost 1000 km/h of air to the head.

@DarkWanderer: Saying "you're wrong" doesn't make me. All you're saying is that this is "possible" now, or could be "possible" 20 years later...without specifying why or how.

"i feel it should be so" was taking into account whatever info i could find, basically saying "have we hit a wall, as far as speed/engine size/aircraft weight and shape are concerned?" and if yes, then is it reasonable to assume that this aircraft should not be able to fly that fast.

@Dr_Death: Yup, that and something to do with drag making propeller flight inefficient.

Anyway. It seems i may have proven myself wrong...the Predator's information i was looking at was the older 1995 original.

The current Predator B, introduced in 2007, has a max speed of 482 km/h, and a cruise speed of 313 km/h.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RQ-9_Predator_B#Specifications

So i guess this ticket can be shut. HOWEVER:

Consider that the size of the Greyhawk (based on AD2001's link) and the Predator, along with their engine power, etc. are very different.

@DarkWanderer: Saying "you're wrong" doesn't make me. All you're saying is that this is "possible" now, or could be "possible" 20 years later...without specifying why or how.

"i feel it should be so" was taking into account whatever info i could find, basically saying "have we hit a wall, as far as speed/engine size/aircraft weight and shape are concerned?" and if yes, then is it reasonable to assume that this aircraft should not be able to fly that fast.<<
You're wrong assuming that "reasonable" is an argument. For you one thing is reasonable, for other person - another. The only common denominator is (tadaam!) physics. You have also failed to provide any "reasonable" explanation except "well, look at it, it can't fly that fast".

You're right in one aspect, however, I haven't elaborated enough.

There are tens of factors which affect the fixed-wing aircraft modelling, but let's do a simple as an axe calucaltion with two factors:
1.Drag. It consists of three parts: induced drag, form drag and wave drag. For the purpose of our discussion, we're limited to first two, as wave drag is insignificant at speeds lower than 0.7M.
Formula for drag is here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/9/a/99a6015b6a230860c9b1517b238e5de9.png
Fixing all the components except velocity, we get the following: F_D = (Cfx + Cix)*(v^2) (Cfx and Cix are normalized drag coefficients, assuming constant height, same body, etc. Cfx is form drag, Cix is induced drag)
2.Lift, in the same way can be expressed as F_L = Cy * v^2.

Cy and Cix are functions of Angle of Attack; Cfx can be assumed roughly constant.

Then, if we're taking one aircraft and starting to increase its speed (from 200 to 300 kph), what happens is:
1.To maintain the same amount of lift, angle of attack must be reduced so that F_L remains the same (because the weight of the aircraft is roughly constant)
2.Reducing AoA leads to reduction in Cix. How much exactly depends on many factors, but roughly (in our condition), it is reduced proportionally to inverse fourth degree of speed. Let's assume it doesn't change (for now, you'll see why later). However, due to v increasing, overall drag (F_D) still increases. Given our assumption, it increases almost quadratically (to become (3/2)^2 = 2.25 times larger). This means that the thrust the engine must be exerting is 2.25 times more.

Which basically gives us the engine which (assuming the worst case - same T/W ratio) needs to be 2.25 times heavier. However, since engine weight is (usually) a minor part the weight of the aircraft, this increase is more-or-less balanced by the Cix reduction. If you're not comfortable with equation convergence, you can assume the total weight of the aircraft stays the same and the heavier engine is accomodated by the expense of some fuel.

Hence, what we get is that all we need to account for are increased requirements for materials to handle the load and increased fuel consumption. First problem was successfully solved in WW2 time (see, again, P-51), second problem is a simple tradeoff - either you have good loitering time, or you have good speed. Not both. Seems like Greyhawk constructors sacrificed some of the latter for the former.

So, let's put it this way: I've already accounted for all the factors you've named and some you didn't ever hear of, that's why I said you're wrong ;) In real life it is not that simple, of course, but, as I wanted to show, you don't possess the qualifications to tell whether something will fly or not. You'll need something better for that than just characteristics comparison and "common sense".

Dude, i really appreciate and respect the effort you've put into that explanation.

You're right, i'm not qualified to tell weather something will fly or not, i'm studying electronics engineering, not aerospace...nor am i a pilot or anything related.

The entire point of posting tickets like this is discussion and reviewing something that may be unbalanced and/or incorrect, which is why i was getting slightly annoyed by your "you're wrong" standpoint, without explanation.

Common sense is the starting point of many great things, friend! ;)

BTW: The Greyhawk's constructors are BIS. So it's an open question as to what they sacrificed, if at all they did. The YABHON-R, the real life Greyhawk, is a lot slower. Common sense (and watching Discovery/Nat Geo) would suggest that a UAV's makers tend to prioritize loitering time for recon purposes.

In fact, the YABHON-R's website states that it's a recon drone, mainly.

So i dunno. Not quite seeing the logic in prioritizing speed over endurance for a UAV.

You've answered it yourself - YABNON-R is not Greyhawk. The former is recon, the latter is - looking on payload options - a multipurpose strike/recon. With this in mind, having greater speed at the expence of several percent's worth of loiter time seems entirely justified. MQ-9 Reaper - Predator's strike/recon cousin - has max speed of 400 kph compared to Predator's 217. Common sense ;-)

I don't honestly see why was this ticket assigned.