A Brief History Of ‘Drone’

In the early 1930s, Reginald Denny, an English actor living in Los Angeles, stumbled upon a young boy flying a rubber band-powered airplane. After attempting to help the boy by adjusting the rubber and control surfaces, the plane spun into the ground. Denny promised he would build another plane for the boy, and wrote to a New York model manufacturer for a kit. This first model airplane kit grew into his own hobby shop on Hollywood Boulevard, frequented by Jimmy Stewart and Henry Fonda.

The business blossomed into Radioplane Co. Inc., where Denny designed and built the first remote controlled military aircraft used by the United States. In 1944, Captain Ronald Reagan of the Army Air Forces’ Motion Picture unit wanted some film of these new flying targets and sent photographer David Conover to the Radioplane factory at the Van Nuys airport. There, Conover met Norma Jeane Dougherty and convinced her to go into modeling. She would later be known as Marilyn Monroe. The nexus of all American culture from 1930 to 1960 was a hobby shop that smelled of balsa sawdust and airplane glue. That hobby shop is now a 7-Eleven just off the 101 freeway.

Science historian James Burke had a TV wonderful show in the early 90s – Connections – where the previous paragraphs would be par for the course. Unfortunately, the timbre of public discourse has changed in the last twenty years and the worldwide revolution in communications allowing people to instantaneously exchange ideas has only led to people instantaneously exchanging opinions. The story of how the Dutch East India Company led to the rubber band led to Jimmy Stewart led to remote control led to Ronald Reagan led to Death of a Salesman has a modern fault: I’d have to use the word ‘drone’.

The word ‘propaganda’ only gained its negative connotation the late 1930s – it’s now ‘public relations’. The phrase ‘global warming’ doesn’t work with idiots in winter, so now it’s called ‘climate change’. Likewise, quadcopter pilots don’t want anyone to think their flying machine can rain hellfire missiles down on a neighborhood, so ‘drone’ is verboten. The preferred term is quadcopters, tricopters, multicopters, flying wings, fixed-wing remote-controlled vehicles, unmanned aerial systems, or toys.

I’m slightly annoyed by this and by the reminder I kindly get in my inbox every time I use the dreaded d-word. The etymology of the word ‘drone’ has nothing to do with spying, firing missiles into hospitals, or illegally killing American civilians. People like to argue, though, and I need something to point to when someone complains about my misuse of the word ‘drone’. Instead of an article on Hollywood starlets, the first remote control systems, and model aviation, you get an article on the etymology of a word. You have no one else to blame but yourself, Internet.

An Introduction, and Why This Article Exists

This article is purely about the etymology of the word ‘drone’. Without exception, every article and blog post I read while researching this topic failed to consider whether an unmanned or remotely piloted aircraft was called a ‘drone’ before its maiden flight, or while it was being developed. For example, numerous articles refer to the Hewitt-Sperry Automatic Airplane as the first ‘drone’. For the purposes of this article, this is patently untrue. The word ‘drone’ was first applied to unmanned aircraft in late 1934 or early 1935, and a World War I-era experiment could never be considered a drone by contemporaneous sources. Consider this article a compendium of the evolution of the word ‘drone’ over time.

Why this article belongs on Hackaday should require no explanation. This is one of the Internet’s largest communities of grammar enthusiasts, peculiarly coming from a subculture where linguistic play (and exceptionally dry sarcasm) is encouraged. Truthfully, I am so very tired of hearing people complain about the use of the word ‘drone’ when referring to quadcopters and other remote-controlled toys. To me, this article simply exists as something I can point to when telling off offended quadrotor pilots. I am considering writing a bot to do this automatically. Perhaps I will call this bot a ‘drone’.

The Source of ‘Drone’ c. 1935

quote-sack-full-of-beesBefore the word was used to describe aircraft, ‘drone’ had two meanings. First as a continuous low humming sound, and second as a male bee. The male bee does no work, gathers no honey, and only exists for the purpose of impregnating the queen. It’s not hard to see why ‘drone’ is the perfect word to describe a quadcopter — a Phantom is mindless, and sounds like a sack full of bees. Where then did the third definition of ‘drone’ come from, a flying machine without a pilot on board?

The most cited definition of ‘drone’ comes from a 2013 Wall Street Journal article [1] from linguist and lexicographer Ben Zimmer, tracing the first use of the word to 1935. In this year, US Admiral William H. Standley witnessed a British demonstration of the Royal Navy’s new remote-controlled aircraft for target practice. The aircraft used was based on the de Havilland Tiger Moth, a biplane trainer built in huge numbers during the interwar period, redesignated as the Queen Bee. The implication of Zimmer’s article is that the word ‘drone’ comes from the de Havilland Queen Bee. This etymology is repeated in a piece in the New York Times Magazine published just after World War II [2]:

Drones are not new; inventors were experimenting with them twenty-five years ago. Before the war, small specially built radio-controlled planes were used for anti-aircraft purposes – widely in England, where the name “drone” originated, less extensively here…. The form of radio control used in the experimental days was developed and refined so that it could be applied to nearly any type of conventional plane.

I found this obvious primary source for Ben Zimmer’s etymology of drone in five minutes, but it doesn’t tell anyone if the Queen Bee designation of a remote-controlled biplane came about from the word ‘drone’ or vice versa. This etymology doesn’t really give any information about the technical capabilities or the tactical use of these drones. The unmanned aircraft discussed in the New York Times article would be better called a cruise missile, not a drone. Was the Queen Bee an offensive drone, or was it merely a device built for target practice? These are questions that need to be answered if we’re going to tell the people flying Phantoms to buzz off with their drones.

The Queen Bee, with Churchill
The Queen Bee, with Churchill

Biology sometimes mirrors linguistics, and the best place to look for the history of ‘drone’, then, is to look into the history of the Queen Bee. The Queen Bee – not its original name – was born out of a British Air Ministry specification 18/33. At the time, the Air Ministry issued several specifications every year for different types of aircraft. The Supermarine Spitfire was originally known to the military as F.37/34; a fighter, based on the thirty-seventh specification published in 1934. Therefore, the specification for a ‘radio-controlled fleet gunnery target aircraft’ means the concept of what a ‘drone’ would be was defined in 1933. Drones, at least in the original sense of a military aircraft, are not offensive weapons. They’re target practice, with similar usage entering the US Navy in 1936, and the US Air Force in 1948. The question remains, did ‘drone’ come before the Queen Bee, or is it the other way around?

The first target drone was built between late 1933 and early 1935 at RAF Farnborough by combining the fuselage of the de Havilland Moth Major with the engine, wings, and control surfaces of the de Havalland Tiger Moth [3]. The aircraft was tested from an airbase, and later launched off the HMS Orion for target practice. Gunnery crews noticed a particularly strange effect. This aircraft never turned, never pitched or rolled, and never changed its throttle position: this aircraft droned. It made a loud, low hum as it passed overhead. Drones are named for the hum, and the Queen Bee is just a clever play on words.

The word ‘drone’ does not come from the de Havilland Queen Bee, because the Queen Bee was originally a de Havilland Moth Major and Tiger Moth. ‘Queen Bee’, in fact, comes from ‘drone’, and ‘drone’ comes from the buzzing sound of an airplane flying slowly overhead. There’s a slight refinement of the etymology for you: the Brits brought the bantz, and a de Havilland was deemed a drone.

A ‘Drone’ is for Target Practice, 1936-1959

The word ‘drone’ entered the US Navy’s lexicon in 1936 [4] shortly after US Admiral William H. Standley arrived back from Europe, having viewed a Queen Bee being shot at by gunners on the HMS Orion. This would be the beginning of the US Navy’s use of the phrase, a term that would not officially enter the US Army and US Air Force’s lexicon for another decade.

Beginning in 1922, the US Navy would use an aircraft designation system to signify the role and manufacturer of any aircraft in the fleet. For example, the fourth (4) fighter (F) delivered to the Navy built by Vought (U) was the F4U Corsair. The first patrol bomber (PB) delivered by Consolidated (Y) was the PBY Catalina. In this system, ‘Drone’ makes an appearance in 1936, but only as ‘TD’, target drone, an airplane designed to be shot at for target practice.

A QB-17 drone, similar to what was used in Operation Aphrodite, at Holloman AFB, 1959. Source: United States Air Force
A QB-17 drone at Holloman AFB, 1959.

For nearly twenty years following the introduction of the word into military parlance, ‘drone’ meant only a remote controlled aircraft used for target practice. B-17 and PB4Y (B-24) bombers converted to remote control under Operation Aphrodite and Operation Anvil were referred to as ‘guided bombs’. Just a few years after World War II, quite possibly using the same personnel and the same radio control technology that was developed during Operation Aphrodite, war surplus B-17s would be repurposed for use as target practice, where they would be called target drones. Obviously, ‘drone’ meant only target practice until the late 1950s.

If you’re looking for a proper etymology and definition of the most modern sense of the word ‘drone’, there you have it. It’s a remote-controlled plane designed for target practice. For the quadcopter pilots who dabble in lexicography, have an interest in linguistic purity, and are utterly offended by calling their flying camera platform a ‘drone’, there’s the evidence. A ‘drone’ has nothing to do with firing weapons down on a population or spying on civilians from forty thousand feet. In the original sense of the word, a drone is simply a remote-controlled aircraft designed to be shot at.

Language changes, though, and to successfully defend against all critics of my use of the word ‘drone’ as applying to all remote controlled aircraft, I’ll have to trace the usage of the word drone up to modern times.

The Changing Definition of ‘Drone’, 1960-1965

A word used for a quarter century will undoubtedly gain a few more definitions, and in the early 1960s, the definition of ‘drone’ was expanding from an aerial target used by British forces in World War II to a word that could be retroactively applied to the German V-1, an aerial target used by the British forces in World War II.

The next evolution of the word ‘drone’ can be found in the New York Times, November 19, 1964 edition [5], again from Pulitzer Prize-winning author Hanson W. Baldwin. Surely the first reporter on the ‘drone’ beat has more to add to the linguistic history of the word. In the twenty years that passed since Mr. Baldwin introduced the public to the word ‘drone’, a few more capabilities have been added to these unmanned aircraft:

Drone, or unpiloted aircraft, have been used for military and experimental purposes for more than a quarter of a century.

Since the spectacular German V-1, or winged missile, in World War II, advances in electronics and missile-guidance systems have fostered the development of drone aircraft that appear to be almost like piloted craft in their maneuverability.

The description of the capabilities of drones continues on to anti-submarine warfare, battlefield surveillance, and the classic application of target practice. Even in the aerospace industry, the definition of ‘drone’ was changing ever so slightly from a very complex clay pigeon to something slightly more capable.

In the early 1960s, NASA was given the challenge of putting a man on the moon. This challenge requires docking spacecraft, and at the time Kennedy issued this challenge, no one knew how to perform this feat of orbital mechanics. Martin Marietta solved this problem, and they did it with drones.


US patent 3,201,065 solves the problem of docking two spacecraft and does it with a drone.

Orbital docking was a problem NASA needed to solve before getting to the moon, and the solution came from the Gemini program. Beginning with the Gemini program, astronauts would perform an orbital rendezvous and dock with an unmanned spacecraft launched a few hours or days earlier. Later missions used the engine on the Agena to boost their orbit to world altitude records. The first experiments in artificial gravity came from tethering the Gemini capsule to the Agena and spinning the spacecraft around a common point.

The unmanned spacecraft used in the Gemini program, the Agena Target Vehicle, was not a drone. However, years before these rendezvous and docking missions would pave the way to a lunar landing, engineers at Martin Marietta would devise a method of bringing two spacecraft together with a device they called a ‘drone’ [6].

Martin Marietta’s patent 3,201,065 used an autonomous, remote-controlled spacecraft tethered to the nose of a Gemini spacecraft. Laden with a tank of pressurized gas, a few thrusters, and an electromagnet, an astronaut would fly this ‘docking drone’ into a receptacle in the target vehicle, activate the electromagnet, and reel in the tether bringing two spacecraft together. Here the drone was, like the target drones of World War II, remote-controlled. This drone spacecraft never flew, but it does show the expanding use of the word ‘drone’, especially in the aerospace industry.

If you’re looking an unimaginably cool drone that actually took to the air, you need only look at the Lockheed D-21, a reconnaissance aircraft designed to fly over Red China at Mach 3.

The M-21 carrier aircraft and D-21 drone. The M-21 was a variant of the A-12 reconnaissance aircraft, predecessor to the SR-71 reconnaissance aircraft.
The M-21 carrier aircraft and D-21 drone. The M-21 was a variant of the A-12 reconnaissance aircraft, predecessor to the SR-71 reconnaissance aircraft.

The ‘D’ in ‘D-21’ means ‘daughter’, and the carrier aircraft for this unmanned spy plane is the M-21, ‘M’ meaning ‘mother’. Nevertheless, the D-21 was referred to in contemporary sources as a drone. The D-21 was perhaps the first drone referred to as such that was a pure observation aircraft, meant to spy on the enemy.

The 1960s didn’t just give drones the ability to haul a camera over the enemy. 1960 saw the first offensive drone – the first drone called as such that was able to drop homing torpedos into the ocean above enemy submarines.

qh-50cThe Gyrodyne QH-50 – also know as DASH, the Drone Anti-Submarine Helicopter – was the US Navy’s answer to a problem. At the time, the Soviets were building submarines faster than the United States could build anti-submarine frigates. Older ships were available, but these ships weren’t large enough for a full-sized helicopter. The solution was a drone that could launch off the deck, fly a few miles to an interesting ping on the sonar, and drop a torpedo. The solution was the first offensive drone, the first unmanned aircraft capable of delivering a weapon.

The QH-50 was a relatively small coaxial helicopter piloted by remote control. It was big enough to haul one torpedo twenty miles away from a ship and have this self-guided torpedo take care of the rest.

The QH-50 was a historical curiosity born from two realities. The US Navy had anti-submarine ships that could detect Soviet subs dozens of miles away. These anti-submarine ships didn’t have torpedos with that range and didn’t have a flight deck to launch larger helicopters. The QH-50 was the result, but new ships and more capable torpedos made this drone obsolete in less than a decade. An otherwise entirely unremarkable weapons platform, the QH-50 has one claim to fame: it was the first drone, referred to as such in contemporary sources, that could launch a weapon. It was the first offensive drone.

The Confusion of the Tounges, c. 1965-2000

On June 13, 1963, a Reuters article reported a joint venture between Britain and Canada to build an unmanned spy plane, specifically referred to as an ‘unmanned aerial vehicle’ [7]. The reporter, with full knowledge of the previous two decades of unmanned aerospace achievement, said this new project was ‘commonly referred to as a drone.’ By the mid-60s, the word ‘drone’ had its fully modern definition: it was simply any unmanned aerial vehicle, used for any purpose, ostensibly controlled in any manner. This definition was being supplanted by several competing terms, including ‘unmanned aerial vehicle’ and ‘remotely piloted vehicle’.

The term ‘drone’ would be usurped in common parlance for the newer, clumsier term, ‘unmanned aerial vehicle.’ A word that once referred to everything from flying targets to spacecraft subsystems would now be replaced. The term ‘unmanned aerial vehicle’ would make its first public military appearance in the Department of Defense report on Appropriations for 1972. The related term ‘remotely piloted vehicle’ or RPV, would first appear in government documents in the late 1980s. From the word drone, a thousand slightly different terms are born in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Even today, ‘unmanned aerial system’ is the preferred term used by the FAA. This phrase was created less than a decade ago.

Engineers built drones to surveil the Communist Chinese at Mach 3. Engineers patented a drone to dock two spacecraft together. Engineers built drones to hunt and sink submarines. The Air Force took old planes, painted them orange, and called them target drones. So the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the Earth, and they ceased calling their aircraft drones.

In the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, the term ‘drone’ would still be applied to target aircraft, and even today is still the preferred term for unmanned military aircraft used for target practice. Elsewhere in the military, the vast array of new and novel applications of unmanned aircraft heave meant new terms have cropped up.

Why these new terms were created is open to debate and interpretation. The military and aerospace companies have never shied away from a plague of acronyms, and a dizzying array of random letters thrown into a report is the easiest way of ensuring operational security. How can the enemy know what we’re doing if we don’t know ourselves? It’s questionable if the improved capabilities of drones, such as dropping torpedos or relaying video, can account for the vast array of acronyms — it appears these new acronyms were simply the creation of a few captains, majors, and engineers either at the Pentagon or one of a dozen aerospace companies. By the 1990s, the word drone was in a state of disuse, replaced by ‘UAV’, ‘RPV’, ‘UAS’, and a dozen other phrases synonymous with the word drone.

The Era of the Modern Drone, October 21, 2001 – Present


The definitive image of the modern drone is that of the General Atomics MQ-1 Predator laden with a Hellfire anti-tank missile on each wing. The Predator is an unmistakable aircraft featuring a bulbous nose just barely large enough to house the satellite antennae underneath. A small camera pod hangs off its chin. The long, thin wings appear as if they were stolen off a glider. A small propeller is mounted directly on the tail, and the unique inverted v-tail gives the impression this aircraft can never land, lest it be destroyed.

The Predator program began in the mid-1990s and was from the get-go referred to as an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, or UAV. This changed on October 21, 2001, in a Washingon Post article from Bob Woodward. In the article, CIA Told to Do ‘Whatever Necessary’ to Kill Bin Laden, Woodward reintroduced the word ‘drone’ into the vernacular [8]. The drone in question was a CIA-operated Predator equipped with, “Hellfire antitank missiles that can be fired at targets of opportunity” Woodward, either through conversations with military officials, remembering the old term for this type of aircraft, needing a new word to describe this weapon delivery system, or simply being fed up with the alphabet soup of acronyms, chose to use the word ‘drone’.

If you’re angry at the word ‘drone’ being applied to a Phantom quadcopter, you have two people to blame. The first is Hanson W. Baldwin, military editor to the New York Times. Over a career of forty years, he introduced the word ‘drone’ to describe everything to target aircraft to cruise missiles. The second is Bob Woodward of the Washington Post. The man who broke Watergate also reintroduced the word ‘drone’ into the American consciousness.

A Briefer History Of ‘Drone’, and an Argument for its Use

The word ‘drone’ was first applied to unmanned aircraft in late 1934 or early 1935 because biplanes flying low overhead sound like a cloud of bees. For twenty-five years, ‘drone’ applied only to aircraft used as target aircraft. Beginning in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the definition of ‘drone’ expanded to included all unmanned aircraft, from cruise missiles to spaceships. Around 1965, acronyms such as ‘UAV’, and ‘RPV’ took over as being either more descriptive or as a function of the military aerospace industry’s obsession with acronyms. In the late 1990s, the US Air Force and CIA began experimenting with Predator UAVs and Hellfire missiles. The first use of this weapons platform was mere weeks after the 9/11 attacks. This weapons platform became known as a Predator ‘drone’ in late 2001 thanks to Bob Woodward. Colloquially, the term ‘drone’ now applies to everything from unmanned military aircraft to quadcopters that fit in the palm of your hand.

The most frequently cited reason for not using the word ‘drone’ to describe everything from racing quadcopters to remote-controlled fixed wing aircraft orbiting a point for hours is linguistic purity. Words have meaning, so the argument goes, and it’s much better to use precise language to describe individual aircraft. A quadcopter is just that — a quadcopter. An autonomous plane used for inspecting pipelines is an unmanned aircraft system.

quote-drone-applied-to-every-aircraft-in-historyThe argument of linguistic purity fails immediately, as the word ‘drone’ was applied to every conceivable aircraft at some time in history. In the 1960s, a ‘drone’ could mean a spaceship or spy plane. In the 1940s, a ‘drone’ simply meant an aircraft that was indistinguishable in characteristics from a balsa wood, gas powered remote controlled airplane of today. Even accepting the argument of linguistic purity has consequences: ‘drone’ originally meant ‘target drone’, an aircraft flown only for target practice. Sure, keep flying, I’ll go get my 12 gauge.

The argument of not using the word ‘drone’ to apply to what are effectively toys on the basis of language being defined by common parlance fails by tautology. ‘Drone’, critics say, only apply to military aircraft used for spying or raining Hellfires down on the enemy. It’s been this way since 2001, and since language is defined by common usage, the word ‘drone’ should not be applied to a Phantom quadcopter. This argument fails to consider that the word ‘drone’ has been applied to the Phantom since its introduction, and if language is defined by common usage than surely a quadcopter can be called a drone.

Instead of linguistic trickery, I choose to argue for the application of ‘drone’ on a philosophical basis. You are now reading this article on Hackaday, and for the thirty years, a ‘hacker’ is someone who breaks into computer systems, steals money from banks, leaks passwords to the darknet, and other illegal activities. Many other negative appellations apply to these activities; ‘crackers’ are those who simply break stuff, ‘script kiddies’ are responsible for the latest DDOS attack. Overall, though, ‘hackers’ is the collective that causes the most damage, or so the dictionary definition goes.

Obviously, the image of ‘hacking’ being only illegal or immoral is not one we embrace. The word is right there at the top of every page, and every word written here exudes the definition we want. ‘Hacking’, to us, is firmware tomfoolery, and electronic explorations of what should be possible but isn’t available to the public. We own the word ‘hack’ in every word we publish by extolling the virtues of independent study and discovery.

Everyone here learned a very long time ago you don’t impress people with pedantry. You won’t convert anyone from believing hackers stole aunt Mable’s identity to believing ‘hack’ is an inherently neutral term simply by telling them. Be the change you want to see in the world or some other idiotic phrase from a motivational poster, but the point remains. It’s always better to own a term than to insufferably deny it. It’s a lesson we’ve learned over the last decade, and hopefully one the drone community will soon pick up.

[1] http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324110404578625803736954968

[2] The ‘Drone’: Portent Of Push-Button War Hanson W Baldwin, Hanson W. “The ‘Drone’: Portent Of Push-Button War.” New York Times Magazine 5 August, 1946: 10.

[3] De Havilland Philip Birtles – Jane’s – 1984

[4]History of Communications-Electronics in the United States Navy, Captain Linwood S. Howeth, USN, 1963.

[5] Many Uses for Drones, Baldwin, Hanson W. The New York Times 19 November, 1964: 2.

[6] US Patent 3201065.

[7] Britain and Canada Plan A ‘Spy Plane’, (Reuters), The New York Times, 13 June, 1963: 5

[8] CIA Told to Do ‘Whatever Necessary’ to Kill Bin Laden, Woodward, Bob. The Washington Post, 21 October, 2001.

42 thoughts on “A Brief History Of ‘Drone’

  1. I applaud your effort here and much of what you write is of interest, however in my experience arguing over semantics is one of the more sterile exercises on can engage in on the web, and I doubt this detailed explanation will do much to staunch the flow of objections over the matter.

    1. Coding is semantics in action.
      I’ve found that the more code I write the more aware I am of the semantics of language. It’s an occupational hazard.

      Thank you for this article and the time and effort in research. It is fascinating.

  2. This is an excellent read. I’d not touched a remote-controlled-anything since I was a kid in the 1990s and I’d no idea there was a battle for the word ‘drone’ like there was with ‘hacker’. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised when there’s similar fear-mongering afoot and laws struggling to keep up with technology changing culture.

  3. Interesting article on the history of unmanned aerial vehicles. A lot of people get hung up about the”original” meaning or use of words. What matters is what best communicates the required meaning. My favorite example of such pedantics is the word “data”. Although, techically, it is the plural of “datum”, in common use it is nearly always used to represent a singular concept. In some specific scientific situations, individual measurements/data points can be identified and data can be considered a plural. In most common situations, the word “data” is used to represent a singular concept and there are no individual “datum” that can be identified. On the other hand, each to his or her own so long as the meaning is understood.

  4. thanks for reminding me of Burke’s connections

    We have been hurting for decent program around here having depleted all 20 seasons of Time Team, looks like we are fixed for a couple weeks now.

    1. The drawing was done by hand by a draughtsman (probably written as draftsman in US) in a drawing office. The distinctive style may just be that – a way of recognising one of your own drawings.

  5. Great article! I admit I was a bit offended upon first hearing of the word, as my planes were not designed to be targets, did not take pictures, and did not “rain hellfire”

    After a week or so of contemplative thought, I came to a similar conclusion that language can change. Since then I’ve called any and everything unmanned and remotely controlled a “drone”. I have Drone RC cars, Drone Delta wings, Drone Servers, a Drone DVD player, and Drone Light switches.

    It actually makes talking about things, Terms like “Radio Controlled”, “Remote controlled”, or “telepresence” become unnecessary. “Drone” says it all and in only 5 letters! Now if only I could settle the arguments over the difference between a drone toy car with a gripper attached and a “robot”

    1. Those robot arms used to handle dangerous stuff from behind a shield are Waldoes. That’s what they were called when they were invented, after the description of them in Robert Heinlein’s story “Waldo”.

      In recent years there has been an increasing use of calling them remote manipulators. Why? They are Waldoes. People know WTH a Waldo is, especially after they are shown one in use or trained to use one – or just have the function described.

      In short, a Waldo is a mechanism that translates the motions of a human operator’s limbs (usually just the hands) to another location. It may operate in a 1:1 ratio or it may reduce or magnify the operator’s motions. The connection may be direct – including cables, shafts, gears or fluids (including gasses) or it may be electronic.

      If it operates under the control of any sort of computer, with any sort of program providing directions, without human input directing every motion, it’s a robot.

      Those early target and bomb aircraft which used simple mechanical and electronic control systems, incapable of any interaction with a remote human operator, fit the essential definition of drones or robots.

      Why not stick to a clear and simple split? If it operates autonomously, it’s a drone or robot. If it *requires* constant human control input, it’s not. That’s what was used until Baldwin and Woodward decided to muddy it all up by calling things “drones” that had no autonomous capability.

      1. I remember reading about waldoes in late-70s-early-80s books about The Future. Flying cars and personal robots etc. And they mentioned waldoes. Actually this was probably a book about robots in particular, with waldoes being an early stage.

        I think the word just failed to take off. Not enough perceptible difference, to the public, between simple remote control, and robots with some degree of autonomy. Particularly because almost no robots have full autonomy, they’re ALL waldoes to a degree.

        For most people it’s an angels dancing on heads of pins issue, they never think about it.

        Since the nearest phonetic match in common use is “dildo” I’d probably avoid using the word in public. Particularly if your waldo has powerful motors and your wife really likes it.

  6. It designed a quick ALE-40 claff dispenser prototype for a BQM-34A target drone in the mod-80’s which by all accounts would qualify as a hack. Even got a TDY to Wallace Air Station for a ground test where we fired off chaff from the control shack. Once we disconnected it we got to see them launch it (it used a small booster to get it airborne).

    The chaff dispenser was stuffed inside a CIR pod, which used a propane heater to simulate a larger jet engine. The idea was to fire sidewinders at it for practice. Just another reason to envy fighter pilots.

      1. They are slaved(caged) to the FCS for target acquisition/designation prior to firing, which in an aerial platform is inevitably a radar of some form, otherwise they would lock onto the first heat source they find in the nutation… which is not always desirable as it’s not selective enough for a complex aerial engagement. While not effecting terminal guidance, the chaff certainly effects acquisition and targeting during that initial engagement phase. Of course, the operator could always just uncage the thermal sensor and the chaff would, in fact, be useless. But that is not good practice.

  7. Oh blurring the lines a bit are events such as when in the late 80s, early 90s, prominent R/C aircraft modeller, David Boddington of D.B. Models/D B Sport and Scale, took on a project to develop a forward air reconnaissance platform to be used by the infantry. It was one of those competitive tender to meet an issued requirement type of affairs. The idea was AFAICR, to have a camera drone that could be deployed in the field as and when required by front line troops to scope out enemy positions for tactical objectives. Something like Silver Fox size and role. Anyway, despite performing quite well in the trials his design was nixed in favor of something from one of the larger industrials.

  8. Interesting read but you’re using the same arguments that the opponents of your usage of the word tend to use, and they can be easily turned around, in fact the comparison to “hacker” seems to actually oppose the rest of your explanation. Now someone needs to write a longish article on why *not* to call anything remotely piloted a drone, so they can point people like you, or the typical journalist, to that article instead of having to explain it everytime. Perhaps they need a bot to do that, and that bot could be called a drone.

    I don’t know, maybe your definition is annoying to those of us who’ve learnt about technology in the 90s, or who mostly remember the 90s and as you say that’s when the military use fell into disuse. I remember often hearing, “oh I am hacker by night and a corporate drone by day”, drone meaning a robot, a zombie, or something that executes a task without thinking why, with some grade of autonomy, like the male bees who have exactly one task. That’s certainly the definition used in robotics and by that definition a Phantom is obviously a drone, but most RC vehicles aren’t.

    Now on topic, the most annoying people are those who think a drone is a quadcopter and will ask you “oh, curious, what are the differences between a tricopter/helicopter and a drone? which is more stable? how about a plane, is it faster than a drone?”

    One curiousity: the peruvian law on UAVs that went into effect in January simply says drones are called so because of the bee sounds they make, in the preface which makes mention of the confusion around naming. I don’t believe this connection was there when Queen Bee flew, pretty sure it was created in the 2010s when multirotors became popular.

  9. I would argue that drone is being used because of their use by the military and it makes them sound cool. I have been reading magazines and books about radio controlled aircraft since the 1970s and you you know what? They where never called drones! I dare you to find pre Iraqi war references that call personal radio controlled aircraft “drones”. Companies have been building engines, kits, and control systems for RC aircraft for over 60 years and for the vast majority of that time they where called they where called RC aircraft. Don’t be shocked when an industry decides to take a military term for marketing reasons “ewww we are building our own version of those cool, scary military drones” and people get all worried. Stop calling them drones. They are hobbiest radio controlled aircraft. If we had kept using that term then I bet the FAA would have kept the old rules that we had for RC aircraft for decades.

      1. Hackaday, you do yourself no favors by calling people who are actually following the scientific method idiots. The 1997 IPCC models gave their predictions with 95% confidence intervals Actual recorded temperatures since then fall outside the 95% confidence intervals (on the low side), therefore the theory is wrong. It doesn’t matter how many of the cool kids believe it, it doesn’t matter if Al Gore and David Suzuki exhort you to believe it, it doesn’t matter how pretty the theory is. The theory does not match observation so the theory is wrong.

  10. Your articles would be much better if you refrained from calling those in your audience who may disagree with you on some matters “idiots”. Global warming and climate change are not scientific terms they are marketing terminology used by liberals to sell their agenda.

  11. My Electronics teacher back in High School told us of being stationed in the South Pacific during atomic bomb tests.
    During one test they fell a number (9?) of remote controlled B-17’s through the mushroom cloud. Some of them
    made it through and landed. He said one man controlled them all with a handheld device.

    1. This coincides w/the info was trying to cite.I have a magazine called “radio” from 1946 that has Drones the main subject of that mo.Replete w/pix and eye witness( he was allowed to do it by the guv.)description of nuclear tests in bimini etc.just after the end of ww2

  12. I fly R/C model planes. Not drones. I do not strap missiles to my R/C planes and it is now according to the FAA, a felony to shoot model planes down, as they are registered as “aircraft”. So I do not use the word “drone to describe what I fly, not would I call an R/C copter, no matter how many props it has a drone either….

  13. People’s problem with “drone” is it’s current popular use, not it’s etymology.

    And FFS, whole articles now, moaning about the commentors here? Does the HAD medical plan not include your Thorazine? Writing like this needs saving for your suicide note.

  14. Thank you Brian for an entertaining read. Hmmmm… well said @Gorbag, it’s only a word, it appears to me that “Drone” is a word that has recently been latched onto by the media, the word is being used to generalise all types of unmanned vehicle be they remote controlled model aircraft, civilian task and research vehicles or military unmanned vehicles, have even seen unmanned ground and marine vehicles refrenced to as drones, much as collegues and I dislike the word it would appear as @Greenaum says it is popular, and it’s “on trend” likely here to stay. Maybe we should treat the word “drone” like we treat any nickname? After all it’s origin comes is a descriptor for a type of noise that is made by many different things.

  15. Correction!
    “the definition of ‘drone’ was expanding from an aerial target used by British forces in World War II to a word that could be retroactively applied to the German V-1, an aerial target used by the British forces in World War II.”

    The German V-1 was only “an aerial target” to the British because it had a 850kg bomb in its nose. Powered by a pulse jet engine (like the ones Colin Furze uses) and using a gyroscopic auto pilot, it was the worlds first cruise missile. The V was for “Vengence”.
    And while they were referred to as “Buzz Bombs” by the Allies due to the “buzzing” sound they made, they were never referred to as “Drones” that I know of.

    Interesting article non the less.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s