I observe the situation on the Russian side.
The insolence of the US and NATO “knows no bounds”. State of Russia – 1000 years, its “childhood diseases” is over. Now an adult, experienced “man” (40 – 45 years).
USA – 200 years This is a young man of 18 – 25 years. He “does not know what he was doing.” He knows only one word – “I want to”. He thinks only of himself and his own interests.
The United States in 1945 – 1991 years repeatedly provoked the Soviet Union. Only the the common sense of the Soviet Union saved the world from disaster.

US occupied Europe, Japan and other places. They have placed military bases around the world. What for?
They used to call an enemy of communism. Today, Russia is not communist. In Russia, capitalism, as in the US.
What is the problem?

Approximation of NATO to Russia’s borders. “Orange Revolution” in the former Soviet Union – the result of CIA activities. Financing of a “fifth column” in Russia.
All this creates a danger to the country’s territorial integrity and its statehood. What is surprising is that Russia has decided to defend themselves?

Motives operations in Syria, I do not understand. I guess I look for them in mysticism.

If Turkey will dare again “prick Bear”, then it will lose control of the Black Sea Straits and part of its territory. In any case, the period of tension (or war) will end in 2018.

I find it pretty amusing that it is always members of the “mature” state that can’t seem to grasp why their neighbors seek to join military alliances to protect them from their wonderful friend to the east. :rolleyes:

I never lie, but I am sorry to have told you about it…because I am under the NDA still about it for few years time.

It is my invention but still. I think we will build the model anyway…as we have a customer for the prototype.

How is 1200 kg under 900 kilos…do you have math in schools ?

Here is another finnish car; http://money.cnn.com/video/technology/2015/05/06/toroidion-1mw-electric-finnish-supercar.cnnmoney/

This was developed kilometer away from our start up; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsWyoqgYblI

Here is your quote:

It was around 1200 kg with batteries for 1000 km and under 800 kg with only 100 km range of batteries ( which was an option to get it cheaper for everyone ).

So lets review my math from school, shall we? Lotus Exige 913kg – 800 kg (your imaginary car when equipped with enough batteries for 100km range) = -113kg.

You are claiming to have designed a car that seats 6, has gull wing doors and a hatchback, and weighs 113kg less than a Lotus two seater sports car.

Six people is like 7 ( seven ) in Tesla…two on the jump seat at the back…and less luggage in this mode.

It was around 1200 kg with batteries for 1000 km and under 800 kg with only 100 km range of batteries ( which was an option to get it cheaper for everyone ).

Tesla is 2 metric tons in weight ( 2000 kg ).

Regular car here is around 1500 kg ( VW Golf etc ).

Lotus Exige, 914kg:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]242127[/ATTACH]

So you have a car that weighs 113kg-less-and seats 6? With gull wing doors and a hatchback?

Tip for the future, when you want to lie, make up a plausible lie.

It is not nonsense…all 6 people fitted in nicely…but it was an electric car. Car mechanic at the OAMK ( vocational college ) said it looks like from the future…not from the distant future, but from the future we all can agree upon. It was just clean with 2 huge gull wing doors and one hatch at the rear. It had huge internal capacity for stuff carrying, if some folks were left out ( I mean really huge ). It was also 100% moose hit resistent…by the nature of its stuctural lay out the moose wasn’t able to enter from the wind screen ( I find this to be a huge issue here in Finland ).

Now six people fit?

This is funny. I am in a start up center and our first project last year with a dude ( mechanical engineer ) whose brother will fly on Space Ship II ( in near future ) was to design an electric car with 1000 km range and able to sustain power in the batteries even at -20 C temperatures. We applied funding for it but no one showed up ( as it takes around 300 mio € to develope one for regular certified traffic ). The car was CdA lover by 25-30% of the Honda Insight ( that has the lowest of the factory built ) but hold 1 person more….and had an insulated structure for the accus and due to the woodcomposite/aluminum hybrid structure ( chassis ) was as strong as the aluminium cars but was 300 kg lighter and thus needed less batteries…by far ( also for the lower CdA ). I think it was a bit longer than 4 metres.

The original Honda Insight, the one you are referring to with the record setting drag coefficient (the two seater), weighed in at 838kg.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Insight

[ATTACH=CONFIG]242125[/ATTACH]

If you take 300kg off that weight you end up with a car that weighs 538kg.

This is an Aerial Atom…

[ATTACH=CONFIG]242126[/ATTACH]

It weighs 612kg…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Atom

So you claim to have designed a three seater car that weighs 74 kg less than an Ariel Atom, while carrying sufficient batteries to go 1,000km, while being street legal?

BS.

Once again, you are operating in the realm of fantasy. There simply isn’t that much dead weight in a modern car. A high performance sports car can shave weight from a mass market vehicle (Aerial Atom versus Honda Insight) but there is only so much weight that can be saved. This isn’t a question of creative thinking. It is a question of reality.

I have to say although I think they should be about 25% larger, I enjoyed following Topspeed’s designs.
Much more than Finny “rubbish” posts.

It is a lot like announcing that you have designed a new SUV with three rows of seats that is only 2.7 meters long and two meters wide. It seats 8 people in comfort and gets great fuel economy at the same time… you could park it like a Smart Car on crowded urban streets!

Sounds like a great vehicle right?

That is essentially what he is doing. Imagining airplanes that couldn’t possibly be built for the simple reason that there is no way to fit everything inside.

There is no wasted space in a modern fighter. If you shrink a plane down by what? 50%… what do you take out? Now he wants to add internal weapons as well? You can’t just wave your hands in the air and say “make everything smaller.” Every fighter design team in the world is looking for every possible way to cut weight, save space, etc. What brilliant discovery has he made that allows his “designs” to achieve what the world’s real design teams can’t?

Topspeed, let me try to put this simply.

Some parts of an aircraft scale pretty well. A jet engine/fuel supply is an example of that… if you need less thrust you can go with a physically smaller engine and that smaller engine can be expected to burn less fuel.

Some parts of an aircraft can be built in various sizes, but only with compromises in performance. A radar would be a good example here… you can build one small enough to fit in the nose of a missile but it won’t perform like a radar sized to fit in the nose of an F-14.

Finally, and this is important, there are a number of things that just don’t shrink. The pilot and his life support necessities, weapons, etc.

What this means as a practical matter is that you can only make an aircraft so small. How small? Just about the size of a Gripen or T-50 in a 4th generation fighter, larger if you want a 5th generation fighter.

You could make a smaller aircraft by removing most of the things that really don’t scale down well… the pilot, the weapons, etc. At that point you are really talking about a drone of some kind.

So if you want to amuse yourself drawing fantasy planes that don’t serve any useful purpose, focus your attention on drones/cruise missiles or similar. Imagine yourself up a fast stealthy drone that perhaps carries a pair of Cuda missiles, fires them, and then returns to base.

Start with RATTLRS:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]242097[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]242098[/ATTACH]

The RATTLRS (Revolutionary Approach To Time Critical Long Range Strike Project) program, led by the U.S. Navy’s ONR (Office of Naval Research), was begun in early 2004. Lockheed Martin received the contract to design, build and fly the RATTLRS flight test vehicle. The program’s goal is to build a vehicle, which has the potential to be developed into a tactical missile system, and which has the following characteristics: it uses a turbine engine, accelerates with 0.25g from subsonic speed to at least Mach 3, and cruises at Mach 3 for at least 5 minutes.

Lockheed Martin’s RATTLRS vehicle will be air-launched by a fighter aircraft, and is powered by an Allison YJ102R turbojet engine. The YJ102R covers a speed range similar to that of the 1960s’ J58 used in the SR-71, but is much smaller and lighter than the older engine and uses less fuel. E.g., no afterburner will be necessary to accelerate RATTLRS to Mach 3.

As of mid-2006, the first flight of a RATTLRS vehicle was scheduled for late 2007. If RATTLRS is to be further developed into a tactical missile, performance goals include a speed of Mach 4+, 0.5g acceleration, and 15+ minutes cruise time (implying a range of 1000+ km). A typical payload for such a weapon would be a penetrating warhead which can use the missile’s speed to particular advantage. Lockheed Martin has already successfully tested penetrator designs which could be used with a RATTLRS-type missile.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/rattlrs.html

Here is a test item deploying submunitions at supersonic speed:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]242099[/ATTACH]

Imagine those submunitions were…

[ATTACH=CONFIG]242100[/ATTACH]

Ok, so RATTLRS wasn’t reusable and would need to be larger in order to incorporate a landing gear, etc, but that could at least hypothetically be done. What you would end up with would be a short range M3+ interceptor. It would take off (perhaps vertically with a rocket booster) climb and accelerate very quickly out to a few hundred NM, make one pass firing both its missiles, then make a giant turn to return to base.

Would it be useful? No… what you would have would essentially be an incredibly complex and expensive very long range strategic SAM system that would need a nearby runway to recover its drones, but at least it could conceivably be built, which is more than can be said of the sketches you have been presenting.