Talk:Quadcopter/Archives/2014

Copyvio
Possibly: see http://avia.russian.ee/helicopters_eng/oemichen-r.html which cites K.Munson "Helicopters And Other Rotorcraft Since 1907", 1968 GraemeLeggett 10:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Quadrocopter
We have an article de:Quadrocopter in the german wikipedia about the very same thing. Even if you can not understand the text one might get some inspiration by looking into pix, links and the diagram there - and maybe you might want to change the name of this article (or make a REDIRECT) to "Quadrocopter". --212.202.0.247 23:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Quadrocopter" is a quite silly word. As a reminder, the word "helicopter" was built from two Greek roots "helico-" (helix/helik – ἕλιξ – twisted, curved) and "-pter" (pteron – πτερόν – wing). While "quadrocopter" starts with Latin "quadro-" (four), has some obscure "-co-" in the middle and ends with Greek "-pter". — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Quadrocopter" is a "portmanteau" word, a combination of "quadro" and "helicopter". Th "co" obviously comes from "copter", a common abbreviation of helicopter. Not all that silly after all. BilCat (talk) 06:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As a joke it's fine, but not as the preferred article name. ("Copter" itself is terribly vulgar.) — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That's your opinion, but it's irrelevant here, as this article is titled "Quadrotor". The German WP is separate from English WP, so nothing you say here will affect the title of that aricle. If you feel that strongly about its title, I suggest you post comments on its talk page. - BilCat (talk)
 * It was just my comment on "you might want to change the name of this article (or make a REDIRECT) to "Quadrocopter"". I'm satisfied with the current name and the current redirect from "Quadrocopter", not to it. I don't read German fluently, and thus do not participate in de.wp. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That comment was over 4-and-a-half years old. No one has paid any attention to it until now. It was better left alone. - BilCat (talk) 04:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Quadruple Fiction
> For example, in a hypothetical rescue mission, a QTR could take off from Quantico Marine Corps Base in Virginia and fly to the American Embassy in Moscow with two refuelings over the North Atlantic. The QTR could then take up to 80 passengers out to a vertical recovery on an American ship in the Baltic. <

Wikipedia is NOT a Tom Clancy book. This event would end in the quadrotor getting blown outof the sky by russian missiles twice every mile. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.131.210.162 (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

QTR split?
Having the QTR in here doesn't make much sense to me, we don't have, for instance, tiltrotors mixed in with tandom rotored helicotpers, so why here? Also, the Bell Boeing QTR is an established program and there's plenty of material, enough for a dedicated article, and unless someone vigorously objects, I'm splitting it off. Akradecki 00:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I merged the original QTR article into the Tiltrotor page a few weeks back, as there was little content. Most of the material in the Quadrotor article is uncited, and should really just be tossed. I've had the unreferenced tag on for several weeks, and we should just cut out most of what's there, including on the QTR. - BillCJ 05:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Theory
..may be examined at http://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/1826/2957/1/Vicente Martinez_corrected.pdf TGCP (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Other rotor configuration
Hey Bilcat, hexa- and octo-copters are VERY relevant. Just checking Google shows that. Maybe we should think twice before deleting other's edit. Svobodat (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I thought five times before deleting it. Or was it six? The article is about quad-rotors, and that is what should be covered in the Lead paragraph. - BilCat (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Having reviewed the edits in question I agree with User:BilCat removing it. The text was off-topic, unsourced and irrelevant to this article which is about quadrotor aircraft. It might perhaps be added in further down the article as a sort of historical footnote, provided reliable refs can be cited. - Ahunt (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought computer control was important?
I'm no expert, but ISTR reading that quad-rotor designs were very unstable and extremely hard for a human pilot to keep in the air, and that the recent explosion in quad-rotor UAVs was because we could now keep them dynamically stable using software? Does anyone know if that's right, and if so could the article be updated to reflect it? Thanks! ciphergoth (talk) 09:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * All we need is a reliable reference to add this sort of information. - Ahunt (talk) 10:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe Pounds' 2004 paper has this info: http://www.araa.asn.au/acra/acra2004/papers/pounds.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.158.16 (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually Pound seem to make the point that this can be addressed with mechanical stabilizers, "Hobby radio control (RC) helicopters exhibit fast dynamics due to their small rotor size. To compensate for this, the RC models employ Bell-Hillier stabilizer linkages in the rotor control mechanism that act to slow the natural dynamic response of the inherent unstable oscillatory mode in helicopter dynamics. This makes it possible for humans to pilot the system". - Ahunt (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Multirotors
Ahunt removed my addition of multirotors to the intro of this article. I thought it was reasonable given that there were already mentions of multirotors in the references, and there is no other article on multirotors. If enough is added to this article to warrant a separate one, it should be separated, but until then they belong together as most of the article applies to both. ··gracefool&#9786; 11:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Except that by its title this article is clearly about four-rotor helicopters and not those with more than four rotors. Ideally multirotor helicopters should have its own article, if the subject meets WP:GNG. In the meantime to facilitate growing the subject for a future split-off I suggest rather than scattering it around the article that it should form a distinctive section within this article. - Ahunt (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay with the second revert of this content it looks like we have a consensus that this doesn't belong here. User:GraemeLeggett suggests it should go in Rotorcraft, which I agree is a more appropriate place than here. - Ahunt (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, I've moved it to it's own article, multirotor, and moved the multirotor stuff there. ··gracefool&#9786; 03:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That is probably the ideal solution! - Ahunt (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

English language: Quadrotor vs. Quadcopter
It is rather erroneous that this article was entitled "quadrotor". A simple Google search demonstrates this: "quadrotor" [200,000 ghits] vs. "quadcopter" 1,360,000 ghits. OmniArticleEditor (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And yet if you look at Google Books, quadrotor scores much higher than quadcopter. And per WP:GOOGLE, we should favor usage in print sources over the Web as a whole. Also, please don't move pages without going through Requested moves first. Ibadibam (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you follow your logic then it should be Quadcopter: 457 English Books hits for "Quadcopter" vs. 328 "Quadrotor" English books hits. OmniArticleEditor (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm getting 2,830 for "quadrotor" on Google Books. Ibadibam (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @Ibadibam, Judging by your Wikipedia user name I suspect you're finding results in a language other than English. Quadrotor is not commonly used terminology in English to describe what is in effect a helicopter with 4 rotors. To limit false positives I searched for the terms specifically by specifying them in quotes. Here are IMGUR hosted screen caps: "Quadcopter" 296 English books hits vs. Quadrotor 230 English books hits. OmniArticleEditor (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what language you think I'm looking for, but the babel box on my userpage is up to date, if you're curious . At any rate, I'm searching in English too. And I still see a favor toward "quadrotor" when the search terms are in quotes. Could you post the URL of the search you're using? Ibadibam (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "quadrotor" 230 Google English Books hits vs. "quadcopter" 296 Google English Books hits. I am fairly confident that you're experiencing false positives. "Quadrotor" may have at one point in the past (say pre-2006 - 2007) been current terminology but since the explosion of the usage of consumer drone technology it is essentially an archaic term in English. OmniArticleEditor (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm following your links and seeing 1,860 for "quadrotor" and 379 for "quadcopter". The raw search results usually use an algorithmic prediction that isn't always accurate. Let's look at Trends. The news results for EN-US show a pretty clear slant toward "quadcopter" and "quadrocopter". The general web results for EN-US show that "quadcopter" has been substantially more common in the past six months. Unfortunately, the popularity of the subject is too recent to have entered into Google's ngram corpora, so we're not going to get solid results for books. But it's enough for me to support "quadcopter" as the more common option. Why don't you go ahead and make a move request and we'll gather consensus. Ibadibam (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:RM is about as un:WP:BOLD as it gets. You've performed a decent examination of the expansion of "quadcopter" terminology though. "Quadrotor" is outmoded terminology. It makes sense. When one ask a layperson, "What is a "quadrotor"?" they're likely to draw a blank but replace the word with "quadcopter" then the response is going to be, "Oh a helicopter with four blades!". OmniArticleEditor (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BOLD applies up to the point that an edit is controversial. When an edit becomes controversial, WP:CONSENSUS is necessary to move forward. I'm persuaded that the move is the right way to go, but that doesn't make for consensus. It's conceivable that other editors watching this article or at WikiProject Aviation will object. Let's give them their deserved opportunity for input. Ibadibam (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your own research shows that this move is anything but controversial. If anything it is obvious. As this article stands right now it is setting the terminology. Wikipedia with this article is essentially acting as a dictionary to define what an aircraft with four rotors is called. OmniArticleEditor (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, why not just humor my request? It's also a good opportunity for you as a new editor to get a feel for the consensus-building process. Ibadibam (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I made a bold move, you undid it seemingly as a bit of a knee jerk reflex without first responding to the talk I had put up about the move and you concurrently slapped up a (now extremely obviously ridiculous) template warning. Look, your own research shows that 'quadcopter' is the preferred terminology as the trends show. If we mix in the word "quadrocopter" as a bit of a lesser bastardization of "quadcopter" then it is even more obvious that 'quadcopter' is the word for this article. I'm going to leave this now. I made my bold move it was undid but then upon reflexion shown to be obvious and correct. This is not worth my time in pursuing any further. The next editor puzzled at the title who will come along will see the dictionary aspect of this article for 'quadrotor' as a word and will move it accordingly. OmniArticleEditor (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Geez, you didn't even give me time to post that response to your comment before you repeated the move. This isn't a race, or about being right or in control. I just want you to get the feel of what goes on behind the scenes at Wikipedia and get used to the process, so that you'll become a better, more collaborative editor. If you don't feel that those processes are worth you time, then I'll go ahead and do the request myself. Ibadibam (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * A search on the flightglobal.com archive gave three results for "quadrotor" and nil for "quadcopter". A search of flightglobal in general gave 130 for "quadrotor" and four for "quadcopter" (one of those was for a named aircraft and not the idea in general).GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @GraemeLeggett, you're not going to find much info in general about quadcopters on a site like flighglobal.com because in terms of human air flight quadcopters are not common aircraft. OmniArticleEditor (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No I won't find a lot. Though when they do mention them eg in reference to UAVs, they are a reliable source. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to muddy the waters - "quadrocopter" 1,940,000. I tried that as it seemed as likely being a parallel to quadruped and possibly what got shortened to quadcopter. Had a look for etymology of the word quadcopter - no luck though Quadcopter is presumably a contraction from quad + helicopter. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed that too. If you see the Google Trends links I posted above you can see how "quadrocopter" compares with "quadcopter", "quadrotor" and "quadrotor helicopter". Ibadibam (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "quadrocopter" only results in ~ 500,000 ghits. If the search term is not put into quotes "" then it will frequently act as a catchall for similar terms. So, no, that doesn't really "muddy the waters". OmniArticleEditor (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I was using quotes. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears we're suffering from filter bubbleitis differences. I've turned off as many filter bubble aspects of Google as possible (with the notable exception of specifying English results) to arrive at the number of results that I have. Regardless, as User:Ibadibam's very helpful earlier discussion and links show there is no trend for 'quadrotor' while 'quadcopter' is very much the terminology in effect. Also, your research just makes it even more evident that "quadrotor" is absolutely not the best word for this article. OmniArticleEditor (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a researcher specialising in quadrotors (I know little about wiki editing, so sorry for not getting my colons and apostrophes in teh right place). I started research on them in 2002, and have recently been working on a history of them. In research literature from whence quadrotors came, there were multiple lines of competing nomenclature, including "roswell flyer", "hoverbot", "four-rotor helicopter", "quadrotor", "quad-rotor", "quadcopter", "x4-flyer" and so on. The earliest definitive reference I have been able to find for describing this class of vehicle is from Convertiwings Model A Quadrotor described in 1956 (nicely shown in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJB0lJA0w0U ); this is notable for describing the class of vehicle and not the vehicle itself. Up until that time, early quadrotors were individually named with no reference to a class. From 2000 a common platform was the Roswell Flyer, a commercial product, and many groups referred to the vehicles as such. Groups in France called the platform the "X4-flyer", while others in Europe and America referred to it as the more descriptive "quadrotor" or "quad-rotor" (often mixing nomenclature within the same paper). Around 2006, the robotics field appears to have settled on "quadrotor" (with or without hyphen). From 2009 onward "quadcopter" started gaining more popular currency, but is still uncommon in professional circles. The term "quadrotor" seems preferable, even if only for its historical precedent and non-mixing of latin and greek. Indeed, until recently the Wikipedia article itself was titled "quadrotor". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.130.209 (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 06:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Quadrotor → Quadcopter – The term "quadcopter" is more frequently used in news and web searches, indicating it is more natural per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. "Quadcopter" is as recognizable as "quadrotor", and arguably more precise as it better conveys that the term refers to an aircraft. Ibadibam (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support, significantly awesomer as well as more WP:COMMON. Red Slash 22:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (WP:COMMONNAME, not WP:COMMON, right?) I was trying to find WP:RS-based evidence of commonality but couldn't get anything out of Google ngrams, and and I weren't able to reproduce each others' Google Books results so I didn't include those in this RM. If you found something could you link it? Ibadibam (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * support Quadcopter is the more common. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Language changes over time, and Quadcopter is clearly winning. Istobe (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support [[File:Chart_comparing_the_terms_quadcopter_and_quadrotor_in_google_searches.png]]

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

Sorry to shout with that big chart, but the small text at the bottom is otherwise not visible. Google has an excellent Explore Trends tool. It allows you to find out what keywords are being typed in by all its users worlwide. The results can be broken down by date, and by region. Here's what it says in response to a query about Web search interest in Quadcopter and Quadrotor, worldwide over the past 12 months.

The animated charts work best in the Chrome browser. If you run your mouse along the lines it should show the figures for that date, and also offer some links to news stories that used either Quadcopter or Quadrotor. You can get a country breakdown by clicking on the list icon next to the Regional Interest map. It is clear from all this that the two terms are both still actively in use, but the trend is towards Quadcopter. Istobe (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not so fast?
From a look at things people decided that WP:GHITS were sufficent to look at for WP:COMMONNAME, when the search for "quadcopter" shows swaems of little radio-control jobs that wanted a hip, marketable name. Looking at Google Books, on the other hand, shows a very different picture, with 2,860 hits for "quadrotor", but only 546 for "quadcopter" - quite a few of which appear to be novels that use the term as a "hip" and "modern tech" name. A search of nasa.gov shows "quadrotor" being more common 67 to 8, while a search of all .mil domains shows 126 results for "quadrotor" but only three for "quadcopter". "Quadcopter" may be becoming the more common name, but it is not there yet, and Wikipedia is not supposed to lead trends, but follow them. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I did a Google Books search as well, but I think the higher hit count for "quadrotor" is an algorithmic anomaly. The number on the first page is an estimate; the one on the last page is more accurate. If you go to the last page of hits for each term, what do you find? Usually the numbers will adjust somewhat. I found that "quadrotor" actually ended up lower than "quadcopter", despite initially showing thousands. Are you able to reproduce that effect? Ibadibam (talk) 04:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My thoughts on the google results was that they were skewed by the number of websites that sold the RC models or by the RC model names, but I see no way of extracting just the e-commerce sites without also removing articles on the use in RC/model aircraft world. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hip or not the name does actually make more sense as per the logic of the User:Ibadibam's WP:RM. It is much easier for people to see what 'quadcopter' actually means. It is true that Wikipedia should not be leading the trends which is why it doesn't make sense to be using quadrotor, an outdated and little known term when 'quadcopter' is what people are using and is organically leading. The object is that when a person searches on 'quadcopter' given its extremely strong coverage in news and media reports relative to usage of UAVs and drones it does not make sense that they fall upon an article entitled 'quadrotor'. OmniArticleEditor (talk) 09:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Addendum: Just a day ago an IP user (thus almost certainly someone searching on the term 'quadcopter') posted this link to a TED talk about flying quadcopter robots. Wikipedia's article was not 'leading' in determining the name for this talk. OmniArticleEditor (talk) 10:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Quadrotors, historically, have largely (although always rare and never successful) consisted of tilt-rotor designs like the Bell X-22. These are quadrotors, and certainly not quadcopters.
 * Modern designs, those of recent and substantial interest, are purely quadcopters. They use recent developments in rare earth magnets, brushless motors and (almost entirely) lithium batteries to produce 4-rotor helicopters that are mechanically simple and operate instead by controlling their motor power, rather than by swash plates etc.. Although reliant on some complex technology, these are now very simple to construct and fly. Accordingly they are already very popular in ranges between UAVs and hobbyist models.
 * This article is entirely about quadcopters (and rightly so). It should be named accordingly. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge with multirotor?
Over time, I think that the basic quad configuration is becoming less and less a default, and because of that, along with a few other reasons, I think this article should slowly be merged with multirotor. To start with, multirotor is the better broad category where all quadcopters will fit in regardless, as well as allowing related content.

In addition, there's nothing special about quadcopters. The only information that really applies specifically to quadcopters as opposed to the broader slice of multirotors is the exact configurations of the propellers, and that can be in either article regardless. Further, the default for professional use is at least a hexacopter/Y6, if not an octocopter, so I forsee the exact configurations expanding and becoming less standardized in the future.

Basically, my proposal is this. I'll do the best I can at cleaning up the multirotor article, taking content from here where appropriate, and at some point down the road, this article would be replaced by the multirotor one, with a redirect from quadcopter to multirotor. Thoughts? SodaAnt Talk 20:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Quadcopters have the distinct feature, not shared with three- or six-fold symmetries, of easy control in each axis separately without unbalancing torque reaction and yaw. This is sufficiently useful that it keeps the quadcopter as a useful type. It's not true that hexacopters are simply a power upgrade. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that it keeps quadcopters a useful type, and it simplifies the math to represent it, but it doesn't by definition mean its unique enough compared to other types that there should be an article for quadcopters, then an article for every single other control scheme. Either way I think I'm going to work on at least getting the multirotor article up to the standards of this one, and I think at that point would have been a better time to bring this issue up. SodaAnt Talk 21:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose This article is is a fine stand-alone, no need to merge it into something more general. You would either have to cut most of it or it would end up being split out again as the gaining article would soon be too long. - Ahunt (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think most of it would need to be cut. I was actually looking into this a bit, and really, the only part that specifically pertains to quadcopters to the exclusion of all else is the section on the torque control, and that could probably be incorporated into a longer section on flight control in general, touching on various schemes. Either way, there's going to be large amounts of duplicate information in both articles, since the only major difference between a quadcopter, and say, an octocopter, is the number of motors/props/arms, and the mathematical representation of the torques and forces. Considering that specific difference takes up maybe 1/5th of the article or less, I wouldn't think that expanding those sections to cover other types would make the article too long. SodaAnt Talk 21:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose The topic of quadrotor helicopters is already too broad to have mixed into a general multirotor article. Quadcopters are almost certainly going to remain the dominant multirotor configuration going forward which means that as a topic coverage of it will only expand. OmniArticleEditor (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Omission?
I notice there is no mention of the Petrochy-Karman-Zurovec of 1916. Is this an oversight or is it not considered relevant? Hengistmate (talk) 10:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Probably simply a lack of references. Do you have a reference for it? - Ahunt (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Legality of commercial use
Given the recent Pirker decision, and other arguments around the world, would it make sense to create a separate page on the legality of the commercial use of drones/UAVs/quads? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.161.43 (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * As long as it is not USA-centric, but global in scope, sure. - Ahunt (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * With the impact that Pirker has had world wide it makes sense to create a page for Pirker or Team Black Sheep. --Ricochetintj (talk) 06:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * As long as you have sufficient third party references to show notability and to make up the text for an article, then sure it could be a separate article. Keep in mind that the Pirker decision has been appealed by the FAA and this "stays the decision" until the appeal is heard, so the decision is not currently in effect. - Ahunt (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent developments section
I just gf edits that added a single commercial model to the "Recent developments" section. Taking a closer look at the section, there may be a few others on that list that aren't notable or groundbreaking and should probably be considered promotional and removed. What are some good criteria to apply to individual projects to determine inclusion in this list, so that it doesn't turn into a catalog of every commercial model out there? Ibadibam (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Good point! I would say if the types have their own articles here on Wikipedia then they are notable enough for a mention in this article, along with a link. That should reduce the spam. - Ahunt (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Though the articles in question might be non-notable. I ran the two Arduino together as they didn't look so notable (PC mag and model kit review webpage being the sourcing).GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Note quote about 500,000 Parrot AR Drones being sold is grossly incorrect. Just checked the referenced CNet article, and it was 500,000 BOE-Bots sold. Only 500 Elev-8 Parrot quadcopters sold. Gb96 (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thanks for pointing that out. I just removed it. - Ahunt (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Solar power
Mention if solar power is an option. Jidanni (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It isn't. Simple considerations of available insolation vs the power needed can show this, without even having to factor in cell or motor efficiencies. Solar can (and has) been used for fixed wing, in arcane cases with very high-tech materials and large, slow craft, but this relies on the lift of an efficient wing too. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)