A stealth scenario…

Stealth doesn’t mean invisibility. Even if your plane is smaller, that doesn’t mean that it will necessarily be more stealthy, it depends on the wavelength. A good ASEA radar is likely to detect your plane at significant range, say 30-40km, so you’re in trouble.

Not giving it BVR capabilities would be a big waste for a stealth fighter. Just giving it a small radar and BVR missiles would maybe triple its effectiveness.

Another problem is that if you want a WVR fighter, you have to make sure your WVR missiles have the maximum field of view for off boresight shots. So your bays have to be designed to extend the missiles and they have to be positionned in the right place ( the F-22 side bays for instance ). That will impact your design. If your plane doesn’t have really good off boresight capability it would be at a significant disadvantage.

Also, in case the enemy uses heavy jamming, your AWACS and ground radars may be unable to give you the exact position of the target, so the pilot would only be limited to visual acquisition to try and find it, which would reduce the effectiveness of your plane.

It had small radar like in F-20 and two MBDA Mica missiles on its back ( fired when the plane is inverted ) at the best possible boresight scenario thinkable. Also the plane is always able to climb above its enemy due to its low wing loading and high bypass turbofan ( no AB )…and the two rockets to provide extra thrust at no risen drag component ( like all rocket ships ).

The english ROE designs with rockets had incredible speeds..M2.35 etc. So the rocket power really would give the edge when in fighter interception role. Rocket plume is definitely not very stealthy but after using the rockets the plane could actually glide without any engine power like the famous Gimli glider at super sonic speed at high ( and ignite the small turbofan homing engine when needed ).

Stealth doesn’t mean invisibility. Even if your plane is smaller, that doesn’t mean that it will necessarily be more stealthy, it depends on the wavelength. A good ASEA radar is likely to detect your plane at significant range, say 30-40km, so you’re in trouble.

Not giving it BVR capabilities would be a big waste for a stealth fighter. Just giving it a small radar and BVR missiles would maybe triple its effectiveness.

Another problem is that if you want a WVR fighter, you have to make sure your WVR missiles have the maximum field of view for off boresight shots. So your bays have to be designed to extend the missiles and they have to be positionned in the right place ( the F-22 side bays for instance ). That will impact your design. If your plane doesn’t have really good off boresight capability it would be at a significant disadvantage.

Also, in case the enemy uses heavy jamming, your AWACS and ground radars may be unable to give you the exact position of the target, so the pilot would only be limited to visual acquisition to try and find it, which would reduce the effectiveness of your plane.

Thank you Andraxxus, for taking the time to prove what I have said here, and known for several years, having followed some of the forums on which topspeed posted his rubbish, until being banned.

Andraxxus really did take a long time “raping” that picture /image, but without understanding the concept ( just like you ) he wasn’t able to draw the right conclusions. He had some good points like most here commented on it.

There are no Calcit rockets that it could use available…so if a small stealth was desired it would have to have an industry around it with several subcontractors…even if it was smallish as a fighter.

I don’t see the point of no BVR capability in a stealth plane, even if it is very small. The enemy planes would still be able to detect them before they can engage with their WVR missiles. I would concentrate more on a radar or IRST than maximum maneuvrability, and I would scrap the gun, too big and very unlikely to be used before the plane is shot down.

Also, if it has no sensor at all, it wouldn’t be much better than a long range missile, or a mini UAV with a couple missiles remote controlled from ground radars or AWACS.

What could maybe be worthwile is a mini supersonic UCAV, around 3 tons, similar in shape to a neuron, with 2 BVR missiles, and an IRST in front with 270 degrees fov. The IRST would be used to see through the jamming. Maybe 20 million each. Where you gain the most is on the operational cost vs a manned fighter. But of course a small UCAV would be much less capable that a real fighter.

What I claim is just the opposite.

I mean if you really design a stealth aeroplane ( with half the frontal size of a Me-109 )…how on earth could it be shot down…before it shots you down….this I don’t understand.

I don’t see the point of no BVR capability in a stealth plane, even if it is very small. The enemy planes would still be able to detect them before they can engage with their WVR missiles. I would concentrate more on a radar or IRST than maximum maneuvrability, and I would scrap the gun, too big and very unlikely to be used before the plane is shot down.

Also, if it has no sensor at all, it wouldn’t be much better than a long range missile, or a mini UAV with a couple missiles remote controlled from ground radars or AWACS.

What could maybe be worthwile is a mini supersonic UCAV, around 3 tons, similar in shape to a neuron, with 2 BVR missiles, and an IRST in front with 270 degrees fov. The IRST would be used to see through the jamming. Maybe 20 million each. Where you gain the most is on the operational cost vs a manned fighter. But of course a small UCAV would be much less capable that a real fighter.

Thank you Andraxxus, for taking the time to prove what I have said here, and known for several years, having followed some of the forums on which topspeed posted his rubbish, until being banned.

Neither, IMO. He is “draftsman”; he does good technical drawings (3 view, cutaway) without technical background expected from a draftsman (no dimensions, markings, symbols or terminology).

In order to design something (even with quotation marks), one must base its design on some mathematical grounds. Otherwise such pure drawings remind me of myself: I once claimed I have designed a car-shaped time machine when I was 4 years old…

A wise proposal… To be honest, I do want to comment on his designs, but other than a drawing and a pure technical specifications he provides nothing at all.

I mean, I can claim I’ve designed a car that can go to 200km/h in 3 seconds, yet consume 1 lt/100 km, It handles like a formula 1 car yet as confortable as a saloon car. I can also provide 3-way drawings, or much more convincing, properly done technical drawings and a solid model obtained from catia or whatever.

But when people ask “how”, if I can’t show any calculation but only say “I tested a prototype it does” or “it could”, I would be ignored at best, or declared mad at worst.

@topspeed: I will repeat myself that you don’t use ANY number to backup anything you are saying. Without that, people are right when they do trash talk your works (to be frank, I am one of those people). That being said; i will try to do a relatively more constructive critisism this time; Like I’ve said before, you have some fatal problems in your designs.

a) You are working purely on 2d sheet, and on 3d you don’t have enough volumes to fit half the things you say inside the airframe.
b) You are ignoring several dozen items that necessarily exist inside the aircraft.
c) you are shrinking the size of many components that exist inside the aircraft.

Here, I’ve modified your drawing added some placeholder models to your 3-view drawing:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]242087[/ATTACH]

Items in blue:
Radar = Raytheon RACR radar, its one of the smallest fighter radars that would be appropirate for a 5th gen aircraft.
big blue boxes from top to bottom: Flight control system, IFR-TACAN-INS Navigation computer, RWR processor, Raytheon mission computer.
small 4 blue boxes = RWR sensors (if you want DIRCM or MAWS they are similar in size)
Turqoise object = Honeywell T-62 auxillary power unit, shaft driven (bleed air version is slightly larger) its also one of the smallest APU that could power all the equipment in a 4th-5th gen aircraft. Its quite modern, and its derivatives are operating in Gripen and V-22 etc.
Green = GSh-30-1 gun with 109 30×165 rounds.
MLG = Tire is the same size as one on the F-16’s front landing gear.
Purple = IRIS-T, AIM-120D (ignore the fins its a placeholder, not necessarily accurate), AGM-84D, GBU-16, Mk-84, Kh-31PD.
Red = small one is AL-222-25F, large one is EJ-200 without auxillary gearbox.
Obviously large Black box = volume required for 1600 kg usable fuel. (roughly same as T-38 talon.

So let me draw some obvious conclusions;

-Two IRIS-T missiles may fit in top view, but they wont fit when looked from front or right sides.
-GSh-30-1 is the smallest 30mm gun. While it would fit in the area you designated, you don’t have enough volume to fit 50 rounds in ammo bay, let alone 250.
-Even a small RACR radar will not fit in your drawing, all its dimensions (width, height, length) exceed your desired area severly.
-Your design doesn’t even have an avionics bay), to fit some of the most basic equipment like FCS, navigation computer, mission computer and RWR inside. Technically if you want a VLO 5th gen aircraft many more equipment are to be added, but I am ignoring them since you want a minimalist design. You also add fuse boxes which look like this: http://designer.home.xs4all.nl/aircraft/af-16/f16-old-avlf.jpg
-Your entire propulsion system is smaller than a Kh-31PD missile, both in length and diameter.
-Wing thickness is too thin to accomodate MLG, if thats where you intend to put them.
-APU alone occupies rouhly half of your fuselage volume. Auxillaries (hydrolic pumps, generators, air conditioning compressor, pneumatic system compressor, bleed air generator) occupy just as much (and maybe larger) space as the APU itself, leaving room for nothing else inside the fuselage.
-Since you are trying to achive thrust with rockets, you have no means of driving auxillaries from main shaft, so you will a) have to run APU all the time, and on a different type of fuel than rockets. b) On typical engine, APU is a secondary power unit to the engine. Without the engine driving auxillaries, you also need to fit a second APU to serve as EPU.

Fuel and propulsion choice. Now some calculations;
A typical turbofan has a specific impulse of around 3000s whereas a typical liquid rocket has around 500 at best. So for each kg of fuel, a rocket engine can generate 1/6th thrust of a turbofan. Or inversely, if you generate exact same thrust with rocket, you will require 6 times the fuel flow rate. Such inefficiency of rocket engine is the primary reason why everyone is trying to fit a ram-jet or a turbojet inside missiles: Trade of half of the fuel weight/volume for 4 times more efficient propulsion, and you have doubled your flight range. Its also the reason why no one uses rockets in their aircraft (or not even prefer turbojets).

You do have volume to fit a liquid rocket engine inside, but your design doesn’t even have space left for 500 kg of fuel (roughly 1/3 of that black box’s volume). With 6 times the consumption per each kN of thrust, your aircraft won’t even take-off after taxiing. You should really give up the ridiculous rocket powered idea and go for a turbofan engine.. But your design has insufficent volume for the reheating variant of AL-222 -which is among the smallest turbofans- even with exactly zero fuel volume.

Since you are doing no calculations at all, you are actually deleting both fuel and propulsion volume, and declaring victory as your design has shrinked in size.

And about wood. You need VOLUME. Wood is good for cheap consruction; its easy find, easy to machine easy to assemble, easy to repair etc etc. You don’t need any of that in a fighter aircraft. Once again, you need VOLUME. So you use either the strongest materials, or materials with highest mass effectiveness. Former being steel and titanium, latter being aluminium and plastic composites. All are just the polar opposite of the material you are suggesting. If a heat treatment or alloying makes your material harder to make, harder to machine, harder to weld, but you can still use it, and if it shaves 200 kg from your airframe, THAT is the good material.

Best woods for such application barely have ~1/5 tensile/compression strength of Aluminium, and they have ~1/4 density. So they are NOT light. They offer *LESS* strength per weight as Aluminium in the best circumstances, and waste 5 times internal volume. They are also very weak in shear strength, and they have much lower fatigue life, and resistance to environmental conditions. They are NOT good materials, period.

Andraxxus ahoy !

If you check the original thread it had same radar as F-5G…and some oddball french MBDA Mica missiles ( with turning fins )…and it has non afterburning turbofan…+ 2 calcit ( RATO kind ) rockets for quick M2 hop.

I understand you have lotsa knowledge about aeroplanes…even stealth ones …no doubt about it.

This was a cheap DIY stealth fighter of some 10 mio budget at tops.

It is obvious it cannot fit the stuff the F-35 has.

Landing gear has still been a mystery to you. I give a hint….it has two tail wheels ( in the fins ) and one main. It is a T A I L D A G G E R man ! That is where you fit the round the world fuel you suggested ( black box ).

:highly_amused:

But you are right..it is 5-10% too small to have enough room to fit all in and structure etc. I possibly drew it for few hours tops.

See I have been on a hunt of a perfect aeroplane lay out therefore I have been drawing ( working ) like a madman these sketches to go through them quickly ( and usually stop the developement if I have found a glitch in them )….and guess what…I have found one ( perfect aeroplane concept )…a month ago.

I hope you did get something out of this as an experience. At least I liked to see my drawings ( design concepts ) “raped” very gladly ( I am a stupid finn like mr. Finny ).

Also because Finny does not like my drawings and I do have been banned also from the site where I originally started to design these ( the defence site ) I see further splendid ideas to be shown in public as a waste of time. In the homebuilt site poeple got even insulted as I claimed to have been able to design the most perfect aeroplane hitherto…as they tought that their designs are not ok. It is that I just want to make efficient low cost aeroplanes to fly ( hopefully in the future )…and zillion dollar mega million gizmo platforms as these fighters are today just aren’t the audience I think I need for these designs. I may comment but no more will I publish a single aerodyne drawing of mine. I think I already hear Finny and the gang cheering !

whether topspeed is actually a designer, or a “designer”.

Neither, IMO. He is “draftsman”; he does good technical drawings (3 view, cutaway) without technical background expected from a draftsman (no dimensions, markings, symbols or terminology).

In order to design something (even with quotation marks), one must base its design on some mathematical grounds. Otherwise such pure drawings remind me of myself: I once claimed I have designed a car-shaped time machine when I was 4 years old…

best way to deal with this reality-challenged “designer” is not to comment his posts. Just let him discuss with himself for a while.

A wise proposal… To be honest, I do want to comment on his designs, but other than a drawing and a pure technical specifications he provides nothing at all.

I mean, I can claim I’ve designed a car that can go to 200km/h in 3 seconds, yet consume 1 lt/100 km, It handles like a formula 1 car yet as confortable as a saloon car. I can also provide 3-way drawings, or much more convincing, properly done technical drawings and a solid model obtained from catia or whatever.

But when people ask “how”, if I can’t show any calculation but only say “I tested a prototype it does” or “it could”, I would be ignored at best, or declared mad at worst.

@topspeed: I will repeat myself that you don’t use ANY number to backup anything you are saying. Without that, people are right when they do trash talk your works (to be frank, I am one of those people). That being said; i will try to do a relatively more constructive critisism this time; Like I’ve said before, you have some fatal problems in your designs.

a) You are working purely on 2d sheet, and on 3d you don’t have enough volumes to fit half the things you say inside the airframe.
b) You are ignoring several dozen items that necessarily exist inside the aircraft.
c) you are shrinking the size of many components that exist inside the aircraft.

Here, I’ve modified your drawing added some placeholder models to your 3-view drawing:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]242087[/ATTACH]

Items in blue:
Radar = Raytheon RACR radar, its one of the smallest fighter radars that would be appropirate for a 5th gen aircraft.
big blue boxes from top to bottom: Flight control system, IFR-TACAN-INS Navigation computer, RWR processor, Raytheon mission computer.
small 4 blue boxes = RWR sensors (if you want DIRCM or MAWS they are similar in size)
Turqoise object = Honeywell T-62 auxillary power unit, shaft driven (bleed air version is slightly larger) its also one of the smallest APU that could power all the equipment in a 4th-5th gen aircraft. Its quite modern, and its derivatives are operating in Gripen and V-22 etc.
Green = GSh-30-1 gun with 109 30×165 rounds.
MLG = Tire is the same size as one on the F-16’s front landing gear.
Purple = IRIS-T, AIM-120D (ignore the fins its a placeholder, not necessarily accurate), AGM-84D, GBU-16, Mk-84, Kh-31PD.
Red = small one is AL-222-25F, large one is EJ-200 without auxillary gearbox.
Obviously large Black box = volume required for 1600 kg usable fuel. (roughly same as T-38 talon.

So let me draw some obvious conclusions;

-Two IRIS-T missiles may fit in top view, but they wont fit when looked from front or right sides.
-GSh-30-1 is the smallest 30mm gun. While it would fit in the area you designated, you don’t have enough volume to fit 50 rounds in ammo bay, let alone 250.
-Even a small RACR radar will not fit in your drawing, all its dimensions (width, height, length) exceed your desired area severly.
-Your design doesn’t even have an avionics bay), to fit some of the most basic equipment like FCS, navigation computer, mission computer and RWR inside. Technically if you want a VLO 5th gen aircraft many more equipment are to be added, but I am ignoring them since you want a minimalist design. You also add fuse boxes which look like this: http://designer.home.xs4all.nl/aircraft/af-16/f16-old-avlf.jpg
-Your entire propulsion system is smaller than a Kh-31PD missile, both in length and diameter.
-Wing thickness is too thin to accomodate MLG, if thats where you intend to put them.
-APU alone occupies rouhly half of your fuselage volume. Auxillaries (hydrolic pumps, generators, air conditioning compressor, pneumatic system compressor, bleed air generator) occupy just as much (and maybe larger) space as the APU itself, leaving room for nothing else inside the fuselage.
-Since you are trying to achive thrust with rockets, you have no means of driving auxillaries from main shaft, so you will a) have to run APU all the time, and on a different type of fuel than rockets. b) On typical engine, APU is a secondary power unit to the engine. Without the engine driving auxillaries, you also need to fit a second APU to serve as EPU.

Fuel and propulsion choice. Now some calculations;
A typical turbofan has a specific impulse of around 3000s whereas a typical liquid rocket has around 500 at best. So for each kg of fuel, a rocket engine can generate 1/6th thrust of a turbofan. Or inversely, if you generate exact same thrust with rocket, you will require 6 times the fuel flow rate. Such inefficiency of rocket engine is the primary reason why everyone is trying to fit a ram-jet or a turbojet inside missiles: Trade of half of the fuel weight/volume for 4 times more efficient propulsion, and you have doubled your flight range. Its also the reason why no one uses rockets in their aircraft (or not even prefer turbojets).

You do have volume to fit a liquid rocket engine inside, but your design doesn’t even have space left for 500 kg of fuel (roughly 1/3 of that black box’s volume). With 6 times the consumption per each kN of thrust, your aircraft won’t even take-off after taxiing. You should really give up the ridiculous rocket powered idea and go for a turbofan engine.. But your design has insufficent volume for the reheating variant of AL-222 -which is among the smallest turbofans- even with exactly zero fuel volume.

Since you are doing no calculations at all, you are actually deleting both fuel and propulsion volume, and declaring victory as your design has shrinked in size.

And about wood. You need VOLUME. Wood is good for cheap consruction; its easy find, easy to machine easy to assemble, easy to repair etc etc. You don’t need any of that in a fighter aircraft. Once again, you need VOLUME. So you use either the strongest materials, or materials with highest mass effectiveness. Former being steel and titanium, latter being aluminium and plastic composites. All are just the polar opposite of the material you are suggesting. If a heat treatment or alloying makes your material harder to make, harder to machine, harder to weld, but you can still use it, and if it shaves 200 kg from your airframe, THAT is the good material.

Best woods for such application barely have ~1/5 tensile/compression strength of Aluminium, and they have ~1/4 density. So they are NOT light. They offer *LESS* strength per weight as Aluminium in the best circumstances, and waste 5 times internal volume. They are also very weak in shear strength, and they have much lower fatigue life, and resistance to environmental conditions. They are NOT good materials, period.

An additional side effect of having a small platform with limited sensors is that battlespace information has to come from somewhere, else it might as well be a WWII aircraft flying a patrol area with no situational awareness. Hence a large investment is required in support aircraft such as AEW, ELINT and C2 nodes, which don’t usually mix well in high threat environments.

It makes more sense to invest in the fighter sized platform, that way ensuring it is capable in all threat environments, including where support systems cannot operate, instead of numerous larger high value assets that are potentially more vulnerable and critical. Broaden the centre of gravity and the system overall becomes more survivable.

Good points…what I have done is spread the aeroplane surface and volume inside a certain perimeter to the max to gain lite and volumetric ( aerodynamically usable ) structures.

I have to apologize for my countryman topspeed, who keeps posting nonsense on this forum, as he has been doing in several other forums, with the usual consequence of being eventually banned.
There is no need to touch the topic, because I have no understanding of the subject. Neither has topspeed.

Anyone following this post, please feel free to make up your mind, whether topspeed is actually a designer, or a “designer”.

And it is close to 20000 hours, just to get the record straight…

Ok…I might know you then. Let’s then say I am just a model builder until proven othervise.

My friend David “LEX” Luther also never built a real space ship…but he is still trying; https://exospace.wordpress.com/

As for the “foam/plywood composite structure”, you should check Burt Rutan’s work on VariEZ and LongEZ aircraft… He pioneered foam/fiberglass which would be stronger, lighter and also much easier to shape than plywood

I agree that Burt Rutan did “heck of a job” making the highly skilled work force demanding fiberglass very popular and finally managed to break ( after several attempts ) one of the longest / oldest FAI record held by the mr Heinonen’s wooden “Keltiäinen” in endurance flight. Keltiäinen flew anti-clockwise whereas Leshner and Hertzler in Vari-EZ flew taking advantage of the earth rotational movement…as well as the metal plane flying Arnold Ebneter…current record holder. I figure only Ebneter would have superceded the Heinonen’s record had the conditions been similar.

Heinonen was the designer of the Tuuli series basic trainer, which lost to Saab Safir the competition.

Here is the wood work ( below ) by Burt Rutan and Ernst Bugatti ( DeMonge ).

These are plywood/wood designs…I presume. Mr Howard Robart Hughes used Duramold and also the household name Amelia Earhart in her record setting Lockheed Vega. Duramold is a “real wood composite”…invented by colonel Clark of the US Air Force. The new glues ( epoxies ) can make that compressed/heated wood composite x times stronger naturally. If you check out the wood is much lighter than fiberglass….and duramold is 70% stronger than aluminium but weighs just the half ( 750 men carrying HK-1 weighs just 1/3 of the A380 ).

I have to apologize for my countryman Finny…who has commented 6 ( six ) times on this thread…and hasn’t so far even scraped the topic !

He claims to be a pilot with 17 000 ( seventeen thousand ) flying hours…so he must be a pilot. I am happy for him.

—-

Any comments on the lastest hybrid ground attack plane ?

I have to apologize for my countryman topspeed, who keeps posting nonsense on this forum, as he has been doing in several other forums, with the usual consequence of being eventually banned.
There is no need to touch the topic, because I have no understanding of the subject. Neither has topspeed.

Anyone following this post, please feel free to make up your mind, whether topspeed is actually a designer, or a “designer”.

And it is close to 20000 hours, just to get the record straight…

As for the “foam/plywood composite structure”, you should check Burt Rutan’s work on VariEZ and LongEZ aircraft… He pioneered foam/fiberglass which would be stronger, lighter and also much easier to shape than plywood

Small airplanes do not carry enough sensors, communications/EW, weapons or fuel for today’s operations (DCA, policing, OCA, strike, CAS, Etc.).

Sensors such as long range radar with state of the art modes allows you to target incoming cruise missiles, ID and target enemy aircraft at long range with low probability of detection by that enemy. IRST allows you to ID and target enemies without EM emissions. ESM allows you to ID enemies and their determine bearing in relation to ownship. Add volume, weight, power and cooling.

Communications data links provide interoperability and data sharing with friendly air and ground assets. Electronic warfare keeps your jet from getting shot down quickly. Add volume, weight, power and cooling.

Multiple weapons allow you to put multiple enemies at risk simultaneously. While you might not kill them all, you will cause them to go defensive and alter their strategy. Add volume, weight, power and cooling (yes, smart weapons require power and cooling).

Fuel is energy which allows you to go fast at full throttle, go to high altitude quickly, go long distances or loiter for long periods of time. Add volume and weight.

There is a substantial financial burden associated with operation and support of any airplane, no matter how simple or complex an the airplane. These “logistics tail” costs include manpower (pilots and maintenance personnel paychecks), training and facilities (runways, buildings/hangars, infrastructure and utilities) – lots of money before the first airplane arrives at the airbase.

If an air force has limited budget, it would limit the number of different types and thus the number of different logistics tails it has to pay for. Then it becomes a trade study to select how much goodness in enough – balance the mix of sensors, comms/EW, weapons and fuel to fit the budget. But you can bet the result will not be a small airplane.

An additional side effect of having a small platform with limited sensors is that battlespace information has to come from somewhere, else it might as well be a WWII aircraft flying a patrol area with no situational awareness. Hence a large investment is required in support aircraft such as AEW, ELINT and C2 nodes, which don’t usually mix well in high threat environments.

It makes more sense to invest in the fighter sized platform, that way ensuring it is capable in all threat environments, including where support systems cannot operate, instead of numerous larger high value assets that are potentially more vulnerable and critical. Broaden the centre of gravity and the system overall becomes more survivable.

I think you should seek professional help. And I do not mean aviation professionals.

I have to apologize for my countryman Finny…who has commented 6 ( six ) times on this thread…and hasn’t so far even scraped the topic !

He claims to be a pilot with 17 000 ( seventeen thousand ) flying hours…so he must be a pilot. I am happy for him.

—-

Any comments on the lastest hybrid ground attack plane ?

Glider folks demand to see my newest lifting fuselage solar/electic planes 3-views. I have conducted flight tests with the model of it and it has proven to be possibly the most efficient aeroplane in aviation history ( at least when it comes to solar/electric flight ). I will prove that it is no BS ( ….this is the language I presume you understand ). It is the most secretive of all of my designs…as it makes possible the solar passenger aviation in very profitable way.

Also the wind turbine community has expressed that the design as I have described it would change the view we perceive the wind turbines today ( efficiency and maintenance costs make it very lucrative mean of getting free energy ).

I think my bann had to do with the excessive amount of comments on my designs….and too many folks starting to use BS words and other foul language.

I am very happy your ” puheripuli ” is over and I can carry on with my VAWT ( vertical axis wind turbine ) model.

I think you should seek professional help. And I do not mean aviation professionals.

This kind of BS is exactly the reason why topspeed has been banned from every aviation discussion forum in Finland – with the exception of some glider pilots’ forum, as I have been made to understand. Nothing further for now.

Glider folks demand to see my newest lifting fuselage solar/electric planes 3-views. I have conducted flight tests with the model of it and it has proven to be possibly the most efficient aeroplane in aviation history ( at least when it comes to solar/electric flight ). I will prove that it is no BS ( ….this is the language I presume you understand ). It is the most secretive of all of my designs…as it makes possible the solar passenger aviation in very profitable way.

Also the wind turbine community has expressed that the design as I have described it would change the view we perceive the wind turbines today ( efficiency and maintenance costs make it very lucrative mean of getting free energy ).

I think my bann had to do with the excessive amount of comments on my designs….and too many folks starting to use BS words and other foul language.

I am very happy your “puheripuli” is over and I can carry on with my VAWT ( vertical axis wind turbine ) model.

I did get a funding, but I refused it..because I would have had to pay it back and I had a low wing monoplane design in a class that needs no pilots lisence…I felt responsibility…therefore I declined.

I also have customer for my present aeroplane design ( in my blog ). I am working on a revolutionary new VAWT turbine where I test the wing structure ( and the air foil to some extent ) over a long period of time in 1/3 scale to see how the advanced wood composite will be affected for several years out doors in the rain and cold and heat. I discussed it with the chief finnish wind turbine specialist today for an hour over the phone ( I am sure he is also nobody to you ).

Ok you don’t find my pictures pretty…I am glad we got that cleared. I hope you can still read what they contain. 😀

This kind of BS is exactly the reason why topspeed has been banned from every aviation discussion forum in Finland – with the exception of some glider pilots’ forum, as I have been made to understand. Nothing further for now.

First of all, I do not believe that you have received any funding for any aeroplane project in 2010, or any other year. And if you have, what have you achieved with it? I also have a lot of books on cooking at home, but I still can’t make a decent meal.
And I never said your pictures are pretty…:)

I did get a funding, but I refused it..because I would have had to pay it back and I had a low wing monoplane design in a class that needs no pilots lisence…I felt responsibility…therefore I declined. My idea was to use foam in between plywood sheets to reach very lite structure ( kinda like in Mossie but no balsa )…I had iterated all part and it proved to be super light weight.

I also have customer for my present aeroplane design ( in my blog ). I am working on a revolutionary new VAWT turbine where I test the wing structure ( and the air foil to some extent ) over a long period of time in 1/3 scale to see how the advanced wood composite will be affected for several years out doors in the rain and cold and heat. I discussed it with the chief finnish wind turbine specialist today for an hour over the phone ( I am sure he is also nobody to you ).

Ok you don’t find my pictures pretty…I am glad we got that cleared. I hope you can still read what they contain. 😀

I don’t get it ? Do you think I got funding for my aeroplane project back in 2010 with just pretty pictures ?

Do you have any idea how many aeroplane design books I have on the selves ?

But anyway. I thank you for your kind words ( I hope the pun was not intented ).

First of all, I do not believe that you have received any funding for any aeroplane project in 2010, or any other year. And if you have, what have you achieved with it? I also have a lot of books on cooking at home, but I still can’t make a decent meal.
And I never said your pictures are pretty…:)