Flying pictures from yesterday from Jämi/Finland.

Scale ( 1/72 ) considered highest altitude obtained was 2160 “meters” and “ferryrange” 2880 meters.

😉

you don’t have enough room for the radar avionics, look at a diagram to see how much space they occupy.

btw, the user here wants you to design an aircraft for her
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?124308-Will-we-ever-see-true-visual-stealth-in-our-lifetimes&

Small radar fits nicely….see this sneaks really close without being seen so the radar is not so important as in the biggies.

I am overhelmed by this gesture….anyway I have received some unofficial interest on this.

I have also tuned further the small scale model to see more about the caracteristics.

space ship 1 is carried to high altitude by a bigger aircraft, then, it only has a simple cockpit and the rear is stuffed with a powerful rocket and the fuel for it. it climbs straight up and then just falls like a stone… (and still has bigger wings than your idea)

a combat aircraft needs to withstand G’s, combat damage, has lots of moving parts aroud the fuselage, you want it to have rockets, turbofans, fuel for all that, weapons (with systems to use them)…

Right, but my craft is only going to fly to 35 000 ft higher with turbofan and not trying to climb into space…there is a big difference…there is still air at 40-50 km.

SS1 has less aspect ratio..at least stubbier wings…and around 50% more interference drag.

it is interesting that rocket plane like Me-163 had only 0.42 power to weight ratio..worse than Mig-25 ( barely ); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_163

no, not “at least”… to fly @FL700 you need a pressurized suit… your pilot is supposed to be dressed more or less like an astronaut up there…

well, another option is that he dies before even getting there… but his operational effectiveness would be pretty low once he’s dead, methinks… but I’ve been wrong on a couple of occasions, so, who knows? ^^

you compare it to the U2… but the U2 is a glider (without even making long calculations, you should just take a glimpse on its wings… the short stubby stuff you want to use simply won’t glide as you expect them to.

You talks about shooting your model to experience the equivalent of supersonic speeds… except that supersonic speeds mean also different behavior of the air going around you aircraft… your model simply won’t have that unless you shoot it really at supersonic speeds… which you won’t without a real power pushing it…

again, you’re dreaming things… the reality doesn’t work the way you imagine it

I may be dreaming alot…and I have said time and again…that this could be possible..not at the moment but maybe 2040. See that my TIKI without the rockets and inbuilt large concealed bays ( just small ones ) is 3 metre shorter..only 19 ft long…whereas GM-1 is 29.5 feet long. How come people went to 120 km altitude in Space Ship One without space suits ? How hard it is to pressurise a 1 m3 space with 1 inch thick cockpit with kevlar/carbon structure and 1 in thick plexi and seal it air tight…and bring oxygen in there ? Really ? We are 50 years fast first space flight…and reading this ???

yOU AND i KNOW WHY THE JETS ARE BIG..LOOK BELOW. Sorry cap locks on…missiles below where supposed to be carried in LA-250.

And with PW617F fitted TIKI fighter.

Wetted area is actually 10 times smaller in TIKi than in PAKFA for instance.

I have no idea what 4 STINGERS could do in a combat.