Originally Posted by
VF84sluggo
You know this, I know this, and probably most all of us here know this, and would agree that that is a technically correct definition...but...with the help of the media, John Q Public - at this point - equates "drone" to multi-rotor flying contraptions.
Exactly ! VF84sluggo understands what I'm saying about words , and how it's the public , and not how some engineer's thesaurus' uses it , that matters .
Just as my example of the word gay , there are many words , in fact ALL words , come from and are molded by popular usage and intent . It's not as if there is some word regulating body that releases new words and declares the meanings of them non fluid . If the public calls quads drones enough , and "traditional" RC aircraft "toy planes" , whose definition do ya think is gonna stick ? To me , yes the difference should be in whether there is a mission other than fun flying assigned or not . That should be the defining criteria , and not the physical form of the technology employed . But to the public , the folks who determine what words really mean , good luck getting them to call a camera equipped Extra 260 a drone , or a quad an RC model heli , it just ain't happening ....