Yes if you design a plane to kill entire army at once you need to have a huge plane.

You are missing the point. Design, be it small/medium/big, heavy/light, long ranged/short ranged, HAS to have design GOALs.

Pratically I don’t comment on the idea of designing a small aircraft. I disagree about the method of doing so, and without specific purpose, a design cannot be said to work or not.

For example you state, 3000 km ferry range is enough for your design aircraft. That is something, a numerical goal, but you fail to specifiy how much space for fuel your design has (in litres or m3) or how draggy it will be (Cd0, Cdx, wing Cd, inlet area). Those are part of preliminary design, a crude calculation made on excel before going further into design. Otherwise, your design would be unrealistic more like a concept design for sci-fi film or cartoon, or a child’s dream fighter.

For example, you say combat range is 1000 km. An F-16 has 1288 km hi-lo-lo-hi combat range on bombing run when using 370 gals (when using 88nm combat zone radius), flying 892 km on externals, before dropping them. So without EFTs, an F-16 will have around 850-900 km combat range on internal fuel alone, depending on different CZR entry points. Your design apperantly has less than 2/3 fuel of F-16, and has less efficient engines. Will it achieve even 500 km combat radius?

You say M3.0 capability. Top speed is the point where drag equals your thrust. 33% less thrust than F-16, same drag, same fixed inlet configuration. F-16 goes M2.05, how will your design go any faster than that?

You say 30300 ceiling. F-16 has 18000 meter ceiling. With same wing area and less thrust, how are you hoping to make such improvement?

9.5 G is not easily achived…I made a wooden racer R/C craft with 22 G limit. The fact is that if you make the plane lite it also endures easily more Gs.

The Willy Messerschmitt HA-300 was 3200 kg empty with 47 kN engine…the F-CK-1 is 6500 kg with 2 x 42 kN engines. If you use wood in a strongly “lifting body” layout I bet you get 5800 kg empty weight easily..and 9500 kg Mtow. I am convinced it can do 15 Gs.

9.5Gs at 9500 kg means 886110 Newtons. As lift will be generated by wings, there will be a maximal bending stress at the main wing spars. In roughest form, its a simple 3 point bending; each wing providing 443 kN lift at their lift centers, and aircraft weight at 9.5Gs = 886 kN providing equal force in opposide direction.

b will be total sum of thickness of your wing spars, h will be height of your wing spars. L will be the distance between lift centers, F will be your 886110 newtons. Instead of MOR, you will use 74 MPa which is the modulus of rupture of strongest wood, Cherrybark red Oak.

Also at the wing roots, there will be shear stress where your wings will try to “cut” themselves off from the body, which is far more problematic for wood but I wont go into that. Simply make the calculation above and see how laughable your assumption about 9.5G is. You will possibly need far more wooden area than the entire wing airfoil.

Empty area in F-16’s fuselage is much greater than you specify;

[ATTACH=CONFIG]227356[/ATTACH]

If you compare with official cutaway from flight manual;

[ATTACH=CONFIG]227357[/ATTACH]

Almost every space within F-16’s body is equipment bays or fuel tanks.

Going from F-16, you are trying to make a thinner version of F-16 by switching to two/four engines in ventral pod-like arrangements. If you do that, you have to relocate anything within lower equipment bay and the lower part of forward equipment bay to somewhere else. Also, with deletion on inlet, you have to relocate forward LG to somewhere else.

The problem is you are thinking aircraft = engines + pilot + gun + radar + missiles, and rest of the area goes to fuel.

Even within the definition of “fuelling system” alone you will need numerous transfer and pressurization pumps, valves cutoff/shutoff valves, ventilations for each reservoir, a halon reservoir for inerting presure, halon/air mixing valves, relief valves, electrical control equipment, wiring and sensors etc etc, then there will be fuel flow proportioners, only to provide a consistent fuel flow to the engine in all flight conditions.

Then there will be engine fuel boost pump, providing fuel to AB fuel pumps and main fuel pump. There will be a digital engine control system, directing two sub control systems main engine control system MEC and AB fuel control computer AFC. There will be dozen servos and valves, and some fuel/oil and fuel/hydrolic heat exchangers before fuel finally reaches the engine.

Even this is a VERY complex system and all these machinery electronics, 50++ meters of piping 100++ meters of wiring takes space within the aircraft.

When you go into FLCS and hydrolics, you will need huge FLCS accumulators, two redundant hydrolic systems each containing an EPU driven and an engine driven hydrolic pumps, filtration system, piping to heat exchangers and an reservoir pressurazion accumulators. Than depending on redundancy, one or both of those systems will provide hydrolics to LE flaps, rudder, horizontal tails, flaps, ailerons, speedbrakes, FFP, LG system, NWS, drag chute system, AR, brakes, JFS systems etc etc. There will also be indepenendent accumulators for brakes and JFS. All of those system will have actuators, and pressure relief/return valves all around.

Then comes the EPU, and there are hydrazine and nitrogen bottles to operate in emergency conditions. Beside the auxillary gear box driven main and stby generators, EPU also drives an emergency AC generator.

To stop an aircraft on landing, there is brake system with brake fluid reservoir, a parking brake, both redundantly piped to be opareated both by hydrolics and a hand pump. Most aircraft carry a drag chute and a release mechanism, which also occupy space.

Those are all essential equipment only to make an aircraft take off, fly and land. If you want a piloted aircraft, and you want your pilot to actually stay alive in the aircraft, you will also need a environmental control system, with a turbine/compressor assembly, modulating valves/flaps, and a different pipings for high/low pressure, cool warm air, bleed air and ram air areas. ECS also interconnected to fuel system for fuel tanks pressurization.

So in short, there are many equipment that you discount, and those are the reasons why aircraft are so big. Then you want a fighter aircraft, this will add a million different equipment to the aircraft too. Each MAWS sensor will measure around 30-40 cm box, each RWR will occupy space, an internal jammer will size as much as ALQ-131 pod etc etc etc. When you put all those equipment I am actually impressed how small Rafale etc is.

1- It depends; flying too fast means too little time for correctly eyeballing targets and maneuvering to attack them. MiG-29 is already fast, it doesnt deploy LE flaps or anything.
2 and 4- It possibly due to camera and cameramen, which unfortunately uses high shutter times and small diapragm opening and/or small CCD (likely to be a cell phone). As gun blast happens very fast, gun flash images can blend with clean MiG-29 images. Looking frame by frame, it does originate from correct place, but as camera shakes and flash is a too bright light source, it kinda shakes around. This kind of compositing on AE is very difficult to achieve.
3- Maybe, maybe not due to gas expansion occurs too slow relative to aircraft’s speed, and circular looking muzzle flash can form in front of the aircraft. IDK about that.

However, what suprises me is that it actually sounds right. Gun fires without sound, then explosions then the sound of the Gsh-301 firing. Happens due to supersonic muzzle velocity. I don’t think any uneducated syrian rebel would think about this while faking a video.

Will it be s-ducts, radar blockers, or something else?

No consesus about this on this forum. All agree it has slight S-Ducts but not enough to cover entire compressor face. Then there are many opinions;
1- there will be seperate radar blocker: idea is based on some patent designs, and possible presence of an available place on the PAK-FA inlets.
2- there will be a blocker, but integrated to the inlet guide vanes.
3- there wont be a blocker, and compressor itself will be built by special radar absorbing composites, based on some advanced materials recently developed by russian companies.

Fortunately most people in this forum prefer thingking/brainstorming to plain, ignorant anti-russian bias.

http://www.janes.com/article/35260/turkish-milgem-and-lpd-naval-projects-allegedly-rigged
Turkish Milgem and LPD naval projects allegedly rigged

RMK shipyards are owned by Koç Holding. During gezi incidents, Koç holding opened up their Divan Hotel to protesters and supported the anti-goverment protests. Now the goverment wants to take multi billion $ bidding away from the Koç Holding. In short: You know nothing about our internal matters. I accept there is corruption in govement and some moronic Islamist guys still supports the goverment them despite the corruption. More, there are billions of religious and social problems in Turkey I would complain about.

However, this is a military discussion, and all of these are irrelevant. According to any and all sources you can find on the internet, we still maintain 3000+ tanks in active service, we still maintain around 400 combat aircraft in active service, along with the Navy units I mentioned 50 times. We still do maintain our cold war numbers, and we don’t need this kind of army only to protect ourselves from Greece or Syria or anything. If we had slightest trouble maintaning our armed forces, we could have easily shrinked our army to 400 tanks and airforce 200 combat aircraft just like any EU country did, but we choose not to. Also, I’ve provided independent sources that both prove we have 18b$ military budget, and that is ever increasing from year to year. If you have problems believing in any of this, the problem is really you.

I will repeat myself; Everything you say irrelevant to these discussions. You run theories and they are wrong, thats it. You make Russian propoganda, by denying even the FACTs that Russians accept. So all you do is losing your credibility.

Turkey has 10 times more ships but Russia can deliver 1000 times more antiship and anti radiation missiles from Air and in very short period of time. each Flanker can carry six of them and can be reloaded from far off airbases outside from cruise missile range. so your history lesson does not apply.
Russia is exporting huge amount of arms to Middleast and at the end it will jump into it to tip the balance. Turkey does not have any business.

Stupid and childish comment and I wont enter into pissing contest. However i will have say these;
1-Russians dont even have 1000 air delivered antiship missiles in their inventory; In fact, only Tu-22M3 and Su-34s are capable of delivering dedicated anti-ship missiles. Other than that; some upgraded Su-24 and Su-27/30s provide Kh-31A.
2-Flankers cannot carry ANY antiship/antiradar missiles. Only upgraded ones, which is less than 1/3rd of the Su-27 fleet.
3-I am sure Hitler said Napoleon’s history lesson about invasion of Russia did not apply too. “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” is a really nice quote.

By the way some another fact; Tatar Turks which constitute the 12% population of Crimea is now represented in Crimean Parliament by 20%. Each individual Turk in Crimea gets almost double representitive rights of a Russian. (1.6 per person vs 0,9 per person). I am 100% confident your RT will fail to mention this, as -almost certainly- will rest of the world media, but we certainly got what we want :stupid: Have fun proving your theories.