So, the AN/APG-67 is just a placeholder. Point still stands that a small radar with a physicaly small array will not be able to scan long distances as effective as ones with larger arrays do.

Granted, the N036/N050 might not detect the VR at a long distance but the VR is only focussed on defeating X-band radars, not L-band AESA’s like the T50. Any competent T50 pilot will still be able to detect the VR at a long distance using the L-band AESA’s.

Physicaly impossible. I’ll rephrase it again: The OLS-50 (Still assuming that the OLS-50 is ~11% better in performance then the OLS-35M) can detect targets that do NOT use afterburner and from the FRONT at a distance of roughly 100 kilometers!

Again, the VR is geared to defeating X-band radar’s. Not L-band ones.

And how does the VR with its very, very small, weakly powererd AESA going to manage to detect “large” 5th generation fighters so that it can actualy fly towards them?

Again, you fail to say how the VR can detect 5th gen fighters with the horribly inadequate AESA it has. Also, by using rockets and the high mach number (lots of friction) any OLS system will detect your fighter at distances well over 150+++ kilometers.

To make your VR competative, i’d say that you should consider dropping the AN/APG-67 alltogether and install an OLS system in the nose and L-band AESA’s in the wing’s. Also using “doublers” for your hardpoints would be a good idea to have 2 AAM’s for each hardpoint so that you can have 4x WVR missiles externaly and 2 BVR missiles externaly and the 2 internally.

Okay this OLS-35 is starting sound good…and maybe team playing GM1s could have one OLS-50 and one L-band AESA and few just with data link as load carrying missile platforms or gun platforms ( depending of their task ).

Are you saying OLS-50 can detect any size target always from 100 km albeit it leaves practically no heat signature ?

your design is laughable.
you have a puny radar in there.. but where’s the space for the avionics boxes, the computers.. your design doesn’t even have space for the HUD and there’s no room for an engine.
nice parking lot plane!

You could be right there..maybe the avionic boxes need some R&D then ?

Here is the space GM-1 has for the Avionics and BVR..hydraulics and gear arrengement for it are excluded from this volume of 1 m3 ( cubic meter ).
There is now only 3 hour loiter time worth fuel inside.

@ Erkokite !

I think the problem is simpkly that we all are not as wise as topspeed is, he’s seems to be the GOD of modern aircraft engineering and knows more that engineers, scientists, aircraft designer and so on.

But instead of showing us solutions to the points You mentioned – which were already mentioned so often – he makes dumb jokes, plain stupid comparative charts (to admit I still don’t get it why he repeatedly sets his design either besides modern large fifth generation design or against tiny second WW types ?? – and his only explanation is “why I think so” !!

To admit we had to close a similar tread at the Secret-Projects forum exactly due to the same reasons … it became more and more of a joke !

Deino

I think at Secret Project site became evident that you don’t want to see a superior airsuperior fighter to be developed
, when I exposed the big black hole in current designs. They cannot detect small stealth fighter with these features as this GM-1 has.

Anyway since Deino and few others cannot show any understanding and unable to count these features together and draw conclusions..it is futile for me to keep commenting and publicly showing what could be to save 15 times more fuel per plane per hour since you don’t seem to care for a better solution.

Topspeed, please get an introductory textbook on aerodynamics and jet engines. Your comparisons are wrong due to fundamental mistakes.

Comparing jet engine intake area and its maximum thrust is only valid for similar engines with similar bypass ratios, operating at similar peak pressure and temperature. The two engine you are comparing have none of those in common.
The total weight of fuel is irrelevant when comparing different aircraft. Engines do not run at full power while cruising. They produce only as much thrust as is needed to overcome drag. The important parameter when calculating range is the amount of fuel as a fraction of take-off weight. The most simplistic way to calculate range:

cruising time = L/D * ln( Wf/We) / sfc
sfc = specific fuel consumption
L/D = lift-to-drag ratio (about 8-12)
Wf = take-off weight
We = weight after all fuel is used up

Then you can subtract about one hour for take-off, climbing to cruising altitude, landing, and reserve; and multiply it by your cruising speed to get range. This of course assumes that the engine is powerful enough to maintain that cruising speed.

PS: From the last picture you posted, your air intakes are too small. Their area needs to be about as large as the area of the first compressor stage.

So you are saying that an aircraft with double the SFC and 12.5 times bigger out put actually consumes less then the highly developed commercial bizjet ultra low cunsumption engine.

PS: Your are not able to calculate the air intake from those 3 views ( youd need the cutaways and lotsa them or 3D illustration )..the area is exactly the compressor size.

your designs look similar to the size of the bird of prey. but the bird of prey is just a tech demonstrator.. it cant be a fighter.

your designs have no room to house a radar and avionics that are useful for air combat. they are so small that the missiles are large in comparison meaning they will be very draggy.
Even if you could fit a radar in there, it would have poor range because its small..so you have no ability to effectively use a BVR missile
the designs are so small that the engines will also have to be small and with weak thrust, how will they carry all that up?
also no room for gas. the designs will fly nowhere.
nothing can also be placed internally.

lets look at the shortest 5th gen fighter

the entire interior is taken up by the engine. the area around the cockpit is entirely taken up by avionics. it can stay small because it has a big delta wing where the fuel is stored

This kite had double the range compared to those…read the previous page. Engines burns 500 liters at economy cruise at 1000 km/h for 4 hours and 6 hours at drop tanks. And there seems to be very very little avionics in those cavities in X-32..as you can see yourself. We already fitted the radar there ( AN/APG-67 ).

This craft has second to none empty/loaded ratio. Mentioned several times here..all systems and solutions aimed to make it happen.

Bop was longer than X-32; http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/Boeing-makes-once-secret-subsonic-Bird-of-Prey-1098820.php

This craft with monster size primitive jet was just 19.8 ft long.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]216128[/ATTACH]

it’s you who claimed that there was no way an F-22 manages to get your aircraft in his sights, man 😉

besides, the size doesn’t have much to do with stealth. A B2 is stealthy while being a BIG aircraft. an F-22 uses reflectors of only a few inches in size to increase its RCS so that others can’t measure it, when it flies in peaceful skies

I mean the small plane comes stealthy shoots downs the enemy and goes home for supper. Of course it can turn fast too with low wing loading and reclined position the pilot can withstand 12 Gs easily….maybe even 16.

Tell me more about those reflectors…are they buried in or what ..or is it confidential ?

mean the Luneburg Lenses ?

http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistan-air-force/46337-non-invincible.html

—

Source of my inspiration for this is along with Folland Gnat is the Heinemanns A-4; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqF9m2MKGEQ

Zuni rockets are go; http://conservapedia.com/A-4_Skyhawk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War

OK sunshine, are you stupid or just ignorant.

The Thud shot down 31 N. Viet Migs, most with the cannon.

I would love to see your match-stick fighter go against a Thud. If the Thud ran out of ammo shooting at it, it could just fly right straight through it and still make it home.

F-105 Wing loading: 93 lb/ft² (452 kg/m²)

Mig 17 Wing loading: 237 kg/m² (48 lb/ft²)

I do not know why I put the decimals in originally but they should not be there.

Lets pretend this was a metafora…and you are trying to say my GM-1 with 2300 kg minimum combat weight could not beat a 5th gen fighter with F-135 engine ( what ever it may eventually be ).

Hard cold fact is that F-135 puts 191 kN at full thrust that is 12.5 times more than in my jets PW535F-E.

Also the diamater of the engine in F-135 is 3.1 time bigger in area ( dia 1290 mm vs 740 mm ). This size comparison gives us 63.7 kN to be even with PW535F..this leaves very little to discuss…but the engine weighs 5.4 times too ( 1701 kg vs 317 kg ). This gives me possibility to do 5.4 times smaller aeroplane to be even again right. That is exactly what I have ( by accident I guess ).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_F135

Where the F-135 does not shine is the SFC ( specific fuel consumption ) it is 0.9 vs 0.45 of the PW535EF-E. That SFC in F-135 is for the non afterburning mode on 124.5 kN and thus the AB time burns around SFC 2.0-2.1 rate. So you have to have minimum sixteen times more fuel and AB considering 20-32 times more on board in comparison to get similar range. Since the engine burns 16.2 times more on non afterburning mode with worse SFC.

My ship carries two AAMs concealed..so I need 3 planes to match one small 5th gen right. But with the money one costs I actually could get 10 of these with less RCS. Still be burning less fuel and apparently being faster when needed ( mach 2+ ) using RATO.