Small mods in the elevator….err ruddervator.

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?

9.5Gs 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.

I don’t think the G forces for the wing root spar is counted like this in the first place.

The wing itself with fuel load is loaded along the wing.

If the wing is stressed skin it has less stress on the spar area also.

I also figure the weight ( empty ) can be reduced to 5000 kg..and some 8500 kg Mtow.

Since the fuselage is kinda like lifting body it also lifts making the wing root stress lesser in positive G case.

So if the wing with fuel is 950 kg each you have for 6500 kg loaded weight 4600 kg weight for the wing root divided by 2..but since the fuselage lift 1/4 of the total you have 3450/2 ie 1720 kg load for the each wing root ( about 17 000 N ) for 1 G…ie 9.5 x 17 000 N = 161 500 N.

So if the wing has 6 attachment points along the fuselage…each attachment gets 161 500 N / 6 = 27000 N ( ie 2700 kg/attachment point ). If you have 8 attachment locations you get 2000 kg per point …this force then points directly up from the attachmet point….sorta like Mercedes sedan car weight in each point…but in two joints..one is being pulled and the other pushed..just like the spar caps…you may figure how that eases the task !

Modern compostite spar cap here; http://www.pddnet.com/articles/2013/04/there%E2%80%99s-new-twist-wind-blades

—-
Lower wing loading and higher speed result higher ceiling. F-16 also has no fuse lift.

So…

1. 5x AAM (1 less than F-22 and 1 more than F-35)… which must be stored internally to control RCS.
2. Mach 3 capable (which means afterburning engine(s), structure capable of dealing with the heat soak and variable geometry air intakes).
3. Combat range of around 1000 km, for comparison, the combat range of the F-22 is about 800km, the F/A-18 E/F about 700 km, the F-16 about 600 km. Your gonna need a fuel fraction in around ~0.35 to achieve that.
4. Use of the radar guided AMRAAM means you need fire control radar.
5. To remain low observable means you need advanced RWR, FLIR, IRST and ECM.

And you propose to do this for around 360/12.5 = $30 million per aircraft?

Might I respectfully suggest you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. You’d do well to pay heed to what your being told in the thread.

Maybe you should learn to count to 8 first ! http://www.f22fighter.com/weapons.htm

High super cruise ( like in F-CK-1 with similar engines ) is a must to get out standing combat range.

Some developement has to be done that is for sure. I say one word…tactics !

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/

How exactly will it kill enemies fast?

It just out turns anything hitherto..due to low wing loading and insane power to weight ratio..and gives no change of radar locking. Also is a small target…and practically invisible to any radar.

Of course a well trained pilot is needed to accomplish the mission successfully.

Pretty kewl or what ?

Interceptions work only to a point by Ground guidance. You need your own sensors to pinpoint the enemy fighters.

carrying missiles is only half the work, you have to be able to aim them at something. A small AESA will probably be good for medium distances with enough power, but there isn’t such a small airborne AESA as yet.

By the way, AESA’s don’t mean necessarily better performance than a traditional radar. It is just a different kind of radar, advantages in some areas, perhaps disadvantages in others.

the radar in the F-5 was small as you say, yet not very efficient, the F-20 was considered and rejected against the F-16/ F-18 generation. In all instances going up against an F-16 in an F-5 is considered highly a one way trip.
The F-5/ 20 may be agile enough to beat an F-16 in a gun battle, but how many times will that happen?

in an operational environment, planning takes a lot of time to make sure you are sending in packets of airplanes in a way that minimizes chances for the enemy to respond.

NATO in serbia went out of its way to make sure there was no aerial threat even when everyone knew there wasn’t one to begin with.

In Iraq, the Iraqi airforce was put down with extreme prejudice even though it was weak and antiquated for the opposition.

If you don’t respect your enemy, they will kill you. That is why if F-16s were to go up against F-5’s the mission would still be optimized to bring the F-5’s in a situation where their strengths mean nothing and their weaknesses mean everything.

Never give your opponent a chance is the way.

In the hypothetical scenario that your plane existed, the attacking formations would be overlapping to make sure your numerous planes are chased back when the fuel is running low and followed to their bases by a very voluminous amount of ammunition that would effectively destroy their landing strips. Having little fuel would mean they would fall off the sky.

Similar approaches were considered against the MiG-29 and it’s small fuel load, and have actually been implemented by aircraft with higher fuel load against ones with smaller fuel load, effectively making them ditch to the sea.

A small fighter is a good idea, but still away from our current capabilities.

F-20 was a disaster…as RpR has indicated.

I am not trying to sell F-5 or F-20 but a new type of smallish stealth..yes. Some design work is left to do in avionics and radar etc but definitely it wont be a looser nor in fuel load in nor in ACM abilities/skills.

I figure this kills all enemies so fast that you never tought was possible….unless a design alike comes along.

Laminated wood/fibreglass surfaces are one new feature…strong and lite….and RAM sticks to it like charm.

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.

I have mentioned this is small countrys ( not necessarily Finland ) defence weapon…it needs no aerial refuelling the 3000-3400 km ferryrange is quite enough. All super power related equipments that are needed to wage war tens of thousands miles away from homeland are not necessary.

Even if the stealth means no communications and navigation than radio and GPS then so be it ( in spartan rudimental form )…or just a map on you lap.

Speed brake is integrated in the fuselator.

Certainly few percentage of fuel ( internal ) volume is counted for the structure and other smaller systems ( valves, pumps etc ).

Your problem ( if we wanna go to this line ? ) is that you don’t understand different phases of designing…we are at preliminary planning…not in detailed workplans.