| > A directional antenna is a bit of a problem, since it is not small for
| > 72Mhz. The new 2.4Ghz R/C radios might be a better bet.
| > Next, the R/C A/C must transmit the GPS location. The GPS data transmitter
| > may cause problems with the R/C receiver.
| > Finally, elevation of the R/C A/C may be a problem with a really
| > antenna, and require height as well as bearing tracking.
| > Out of direct sight operation is highly frowned upon for security reasons.
| > A small amount of C4 in a R/C A/C is a terrorist weapon.
A really poor terrorist weapon.
Landing your plane on a specific spot right in front of you is
difficult enough. Deliberately hitting something hundreds of feet
away is almost impossible.
And then even assuming you could precisely hit your target, a small
amount of C4 wouldn't do much damage.
Sorry, but R/C planes make really poor cruise missiles.
A molotov cocktail would be a lot more effective.
| Let's not mention this out load please...
Oh, because nobody else has considered this?
| If anyone would actually do this, model airplane hobby as we know it
| would be gone.
Maybe, maybe not. But certainly, not talking about it on r.m.r.a
isn't likely to make a big difference in it either way.
| In the U.S. at least :)
| Joke aside, it's actually not very hard to do something like that with all
| the technology available to ordinary consumers.
It's harder than you might think. It's doable, but not easy.
| I admire the folks that managed to get a model airplane from Canada (was
| it?) to Ireland. That could not have happened without this tech.
It could have, but would have been much more difficult. Fly the plane
from a boat that follows it? It's possible.
Since the FAI recently moved this record into a category for
autonomous flight, I can see him doing the flight again, but this time
controlling it the entire way -- he does like his records.
Doug McLaren, firstname.lastname@example.org
When I die, I want to donate my body to science fiction.
Click to see the full signature.