Nuclear plants, believe it or not, are designed to withstand tremendous impacts. The chances of an airliner crash into one causing a meltdown is minuscule.
For that matter, the Pentagon withstood that sort of impact better than the WTC, while heavily damaged the Pentagon was repaired and restored.
Nope, crashing a plane into a nuke plant will not result in disaster.
Airplane platform is not a good one for a gun, the recoil will throw off your aim. Newton’s laws and all that. Warplanes get around that (somewhat) by having enough mass to compensate for the imposed force but a small drone won’t have that.
There are other ways to cause mayhem, though.
Using a helicopter drone have a shotgun tube device pointed down and get on top of your target. Only need one shot.
I really don’t want to get into detailed planning of how to DIY an assassination drone.
There is much import in your statement: there are other ways to cause mayhem [implied: with drones].
I thought you were an engineer?
What happened to “For science!” and all that? Just because someone has schematics, mock-ups and parts doesn’t mean we intend to USE the device.
Avert your eyes, Ma’am.
Guns big enough for one-shot-one-kill results are heavy and need aiming. Quadcopter drones have payloads measured in ounces.
Far smarter to simply install a few ounces up to a couple pounds of C4 and a detonator. Then fly into immediate proximity of your target & detonate. As noted above, it’s tough to protect an outdoors stage/podium from quadcopters without considerable risk to the audience. The most effective countermeasure is to enclose the whole arena.
Where it gets interesting is in large indoor venues like domed stadiums or large convention centers. If the bad guys can smuggle the parts into the building & assemble the device indoors they could still make a pretty good attempt at their target.
Pilot, actually, of both full size and RC model aircraft, which seem to be called drones these days.
Not so much an engineer as an occasional mechanic, but only when truly necessary. When it comes to flying things I sit in myself I prefer to leave repairs to the experts.
For the “drones” I’m actually more intrigued by the tiny, light, and slow though I did dabble in heavier and faster airplanes when I first got into it. Also dabbled in RC gliders and ornithopters. Love to experiment, but not especially gifted in engineering.
An explosion per se is not much of a weapon - see “suicide vest” or “hand grenade” - you use the force to throw shrapnel, which will do some damage.
Then you’re back to payload problems - shrapnel weighs a bit.
As stated, radio-controlled small airplanes have been around for decades - the thought of using one for crime occurred to me a couple of decades ago.
The biggest change is the miniaturization of the controller, and the addition of GPS precision navigation.
Thanks for the link. I should have looked there first.
I associate the word “drones” with the four engine helicopter R/C, which apparently does not take the same skill to operate as aircraft R/C. I enjoy model rocketry, with a friend at work, but I never thought I could acquire his skill at R/C, and did not invest the money. He and his buddies go to “the pea field” where a farmer lets them fly, and do such things as put a streamer on the tail of their aircraft, and attack to chew off the streamer with the propeller of an enemy attacker.
And bad fiction thought of itseveral decades before that.
That’s a quadcopter (there are other rotor numbers, like two and 6 (hexcopter) and probably even more). Yes, they are easier, but that isn’t just because they have four rotors, there’s some some other wizardry going on that allows them to self-stabilize to a greater or lesser degree. R/C fixed wing are also acquiring some of these things which are making them easier to fly.
Without those assists R/C rotorcraft are MUCH harder to control than R/C fixed wing or ornithopters.
There are also some decent desktop computer R/C simulators that take a lot of the cost out of learning the skills, as you’re crashing pixels instead of material objects.
IF we’re talking assassination then an explosion is plenty good. The lethal radius of a pound of C4 is well within practical quadcopter flying accuracy. For injuring large numbers in a crowd you’re right that shrapnel has a much larger effective radius than blast.
Use the right weapon for the mission.
How much will the shrapnel weigh?
It’s the same idea from many years ago when an RC car with C4 explosives was used to kill someone.
I have to wonder if someone has developed or is developing a good electronic counter measures package for the control signals used by commercially available systems. A sophisticated system would even have to be in constant jam mode if it could identify the kind of traffic associated with controlling those drones.
For small payloads, soft body armor would be effective against most of the shrapnel such a system would be capable of throwing out. That doesn’t protect the head or do anything if the device explodes in a lethal radius for the concussion. It could help reduce the lethality of an attempt though.
One wonders if restrictions on their use was connected with those counter measures.
Rather than explosives, dispersal of a biological agent seems simpler.