Talk:General Atomics MQ-1C Gray Eagle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

EPIC fail

The UAS in the picture is a Warrior Alpha, not an MQ1-C — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.69.170 (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Sky Warrior

The General Atomics website refers to this system as Sky Warrior.[1] Mr. Andreas Pasch's website refers to the aircraft as Warrior, while more updated sites refer to it as the MQ-1C Sky Warrior.[2][3][4] The only "official" reference I've seen to the Warrior-only name is an Army press release dated 2005 when the contract was awarded prior to any aircraft existing; the article said the system would be called Warrior. Typically, the Army does not name aircraft or systems officially until after delivery. The Flight Global article describes that the Block 1 aircraft has just now flown, and that deliveries of production aircraft will not occur until 2009.

If nothing else, I would recommend that this article conform to the WP:AIR pre-production naming convention for military aircraft of Manufacturer Designation (General Atomics MQ-1C) until the aircraft is delivered to the user. --Born2flie (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found this link from 2008 in which the Army calls it the Warrior in several places. I think it'd be OK to leave the page where it is until we hear different on the designation/name. General Atomics MQ-1C would be OK with me too, even though I think it's unnecessary, but it's not worth my puttign up a fight over! - BillCJ (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't big Army that is going to name the system, it is the Chief of Aviation Branch. For instance, the I-GNAT which the Army says was to be called the Warrior-A, is now referred to in press releases and official communication as the Sky Warrior-A. So, the information paper is simply going by what it knows from the 2005 press release, as are all the other references. Then you have Jane's, a reputable source, as well as Flight Global, a fairly reputable reporting source for aviation, falling in line with GA-ASI and calling it the MQ-1C Sky Warrior. I think that the sources are mixed at best, with the older sources agreeing on Warrior, and the newer sources (sans the information paper) agreeing on Sky Warrior. I think the truth is closer to that nobody knows exactly what it will be called until the Army takes delivery and the aircraft receives its official name. --Born2flie (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am an a engineer who works at GA-ASI. The program started out as simply "Warrior" (well, actually it was just known as ERMP in the earliest days), and to this day the aircraft is still referred to in this manner much of the time (in conversation and on internal documents). However, it seems that GA is indeed adopting the "Sky Warrior" title, which it has trademarked and uses on public documents. Our CEO now refers to it exclusively (or nearly so) as Sky Warrior. This started *after* GA was awarded the ERMP contract, apparently (?) following the desires of the Army or DOD. I will say we were absolutely bewildered that the aircraft was given an MQ-1 designation by the DoD (specifically, MQ-1C) given the fact that the only commonality with the original MQ-1 Predator is aesthetics (similar to the situation of the F/A-18 Super Hornet "variant"). DaveJes1979 (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thielert

Per this news release, Thielert, the company which makes the MQ-1C's engine, has filed for insolvency. This may have some effect on the program's future. There are some details of the company's financial problems in the Thielert article. - BillCJ (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Lycoming is offering or actually producing a 200hp diesel for this bird. TGCP (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gray Eagle

Aviation Week (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/EAG121109.xml) says "The soon to be re-designated Gray Eagle UAV, currently called the extended range/multi-purpose (ERMP) unmanned aircraft system by the Army, is being rushed into service with newly-formed quick reaction capability (QRC) units in Iraq and Afghanistan." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.27.1.18 (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Soon to be renamed" is vague. Btw, you changed the article text today, but as you cited no sources, I reverted it. We can change the title and names in the article after it's been renamed, provided reliable sources are cited stating that the name has been officially changed. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thielert's Centurion turbo-diesel has also broken into the UAV market, powering the US Army's MQ-1C Gray Eagle (formerly Sky Warrior) variant of the Predator. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Afc4a6d9e-62ba-4145-a0bb-341ccafdf67a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.27.1.18 (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been officially redesignated the Grey Eagle, I have changed the name in the article, but don't know how to edit the title. regardsMztourist (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still need a source for that, but once we a reliable source clearly stating that it's official, I'll make the changes. And whether it's "Gray" or "Grey". - BilCat (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From a quick Google search, the new name does appear official, but a search of army.mil shows the use of gray and grey about equal. So we do still needs something official that states the new name that is binding, not just usage. - BilCat (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone found a reference that appears to be definitive, which specifically state the correct spelling is "Grey". The ref is here. - BilCat (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling is Gray like the color. The system is named after the Indian chief Gray Eagle and he takes his name after the actual animal that is Gray with an a. Grey with an e is used as a name and is not a color. Most army aircraft take their name after some native American influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.18.184.135 (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That Army Colonel should check his spelling... the Indian Chief was Gray Eagle (grave marker). Seriously, though, GA calls it the Gray Eagle(tm) (GA-ASI products) and several recent Army contracts also spell it with an 'a'. I'll add it as a GA-ASI also called, but we should consider renaming the article. SwineFlew? (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have contridictory reports...so I'm not sure. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I think it should be 'gray' (per most sources), I reverted a previous edit that had changed the spelling to gray throughout this article... primarily because it wrongly changed the quote within a citation. 66.87.0.201 (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Service?

Is this thing in service? The article says it will be in 2009, but the page does nto seem to ahve been updated. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 06:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


There is a new plan for the MQ-1C. See: http://www.army.mil/-news/2011/01/18/50499-army-expanding-uas-fleet-speeding-up-delivery/?ref=news-home-title1

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on General Atomics MQ-1C Gray Eagle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on General Atomics MQ-1C Gray Eagle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

range 249 miles?

the range is clearly wrong. the 249 miles in that article must be referring to some kind of local/non-satellite ground controlled option. 249 miles is is less than the predator and the gray eagle is meant to be an improvement on the predator.

I guess the endurance of 25 hours probably is not at max speed, but assuming 25 hours of cruising at 50 mph gets me to 1250 miles, so 500 there and 500 back seems justifiable. This thing can definitely cruise at more than 50 mph. That is more than 249 miles. 207.229.183.230 (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:General_Atomics_MQ-1C_Gray_Eagle&oldid=1202241550"