globalhawk-main%282%29.jpgWhile SkyWalker is out-of stock in almost everywhere, new big size foam models are popping out in many places out there. I just can't stop looking at this one... looks so nice!

The question here is, are those beautiful models really useful for FPV or being our Drones? I would be afraid of breaking such a beautiful thing... and the 2360mm wing doesn't looks that strong.


Those fins underneath the V tail... it looks pretty weak to touch the ground a second time.


Space would not be a problem, for sure.


Here is the link for detailed infos: RQ-4B Global Hawk

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones


  • I do not wish to seem argumentative but this plane is known to glide fairly well and in several of the youtube videos of it you can hear the pilots pull throttle to less than half and the plane will still glide. I am not an experienced pilot but I purchased this model and placed all of the ardupilot equipment along with a huge 4S 3.3 AMP Zippy Compact lipo inside (a little cutting was necessary to correct the cg). I have not yet attempted a flight but I will post my results in this thread. (Also if you are a beginning pilot who owns an XBOX 360, buy the game "HAWKS"  and play it like crazy then use your controller through apm mission planner with 3dr telemetry) If you thought you were a beginner apm might be able to change that. (Remember to set your radio airspeed to 128!)

  • I noticed that the Hobbyking model does not us Vtail mixing but restrict tail to elevator functions....

  • I've been looking at scratch building a 1:12 scale of the RQ-4B for some time now and I do believe it should scale reasonably well, even using the same airfoil.  The use of V-tail lowers drag and what is essentially a glider wing with a 25:1 aspect ratio.  The RQ-4B (or MQ-4C BAMS forn Navy) is an improvement on the RQ-4A for scaling down due to the introduced wing dihedral and rake.  I have the wing cores ready.  My wingspan will be 3.3m. Fuselage 1.21m long.  My main problem at the moment is fuselage construction method and the choice of retracts for the thin wing (27mm at mounting point).

  • Todd Hill - take a look at these microturbines -


    Untitled Document
  • Try the Xplane version of the full size predator.  It really does not like slowing down much and tries to high speed stall during turns. Very much less than fun to fly.

  • i like this airframe more 


    sandstorm airframe

  • Moderator

    Weight is the enemy of all of us, both around the waist and on our airframes. If you can find a free flight meeting, however dull you might think it will be take some time to go watch them fly. If your in the UK you won't beat the upcoming meet at Shuttleworth.

    Once you see those ladies and gents putting their delicate machines through their paces you will appreciate a little more just how crude our attempts can be.

  • Moderator

    @Chris: You should remove the Raven from your list of poor fliers.  The Raven model you posted a couple years back might be different than the Pro Jet version but it flies like a real gem.  The only time I've had a tip stall is literally when I had zero forward movement.  Every time I caused it to happen was while trying to see how slow I could get it to fly, fortunately the behavior is predictable, stalls, rolls over, falls straight down gaining speed, pull up nice and easy for resumed flight.

    I'm not intending to hijack this discussion just want to defend a real nice flying platform.  The Raven model is not in the same category as the other's you've listed.  As pointed out, the others are large-scale planes shrunk to fit for RC.  The Raven is a 1:1 model of the real Raven, it flies the way it's supposed to, but I will concede that the model is made of very light-weight fiberglass and is prone to easy cracking or breakage.   I like mine so much I've pulled a mold and I am in the process of making a new fuse out of Kevlar.

  • With a chord of less than 4" (from my calcs - 7ft wingspan, AR = 25 or so), this puts it in a Reynolds number area of somewhere between 50k and 100k at a reasonable stall speed, which is a bit of a disaster area in terms of both lift and drag.  No wonder they fall out of the sky so easily.

  • @Robert: It is odd, since the NASA version is the RQ-4A Global Hawk.

This reply was deleted.