Kill ratio only counts with air-superiority which the 105 never was.

All their air to air came either after unloading bombs to engage, or during a bombing run.

The advantage was always in the Mig’s favour.

If an agile interceptor like the Mig 17 can be shot out of the sky by a heavy less agile fighter bomber like the 105, your aircraft would not stand a snowballs chance in hell against modern air superiority type fighters from Russia, or any where.

I fail to see the point you brought with this Thud ? Was there any ?

It is an analogy , not a metafora, although both greek words.

However, the telephone was used for communication, the modern day mobile phone has more processing power than a 60’s mainframe.

to put it in other words, they can do more because they have grown.

your plane, cannot be a step forward, because it lacks the revolutionary element that would make it a viable solution to a problem.

You see, it is not by accident that people from all over the world come to a similar approach to a given problem. The problem of modern day fighter plane.

the arrive at similar solutions because they have a given set of facts about it. Fuel, engines, size of weapons, size of pilots, size of avionics, etc etc etc.

Some of the above were eliminated or changed with the UAV, but your plane is not based on a similar revolutionary aspect.

Here is second generation jet in analogy.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]216059[/ATTACH]

I think you are starting to catch my point here. You guessed what my plane looks like as an analogy even though you had not seen it !

Coandas jet below as an analogy.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]216060[/ATTACH]

First generation jet as analogy below.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]216061[/ATTACH]

Here is a nimble ( mobile ) telephone below..a bit stealth too..could this actually be a small 5th gen fighter analogy ?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]216062[/ATTACH]

Is it a metafora now ?

You see, it is not by accident that people from all over the world come to a similar approach to a given problem. The problem of modern day fighter plane.

the arrive at similar solutions because they have a given set of facts about it. Fuel, engines, size of weapons, size of pilots, size of avionics, etc etc etc.

Some of the above were eliminated or changed with the UAV, but your plane is not based on a similar revolutionary aspect.

Lets put the pickering aside. How come I did not come to the same solution as you did ( soviets and chinese only followed you ) ?

I have diminutive stealth aeroplane design for a reason. To defend a nation.

Pilot is 185 cm inside…its not fuel…it is range …fuel provides energy for jet engine..there fore smaller jet engine…to have less fuel ( which by the way gives in this craft better range too ). Weapons are smaller 47-80 kilo gun and just 3.1 metre 112 kilo MICA missiles in concealed bays.

http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBDA_MICA

Also very simple avionics and extremely simple landing gear…and many other arrangements to meet the goal.

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.

Sorry I counted the wingloading with full plane MTOW.

I see several MIGs..what was the kill ratio with 105s ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_F-105_Thunderchief

AA guns are not designed to be less effective with range.

I appreciate what you are doing, I admire your enthusiasm, I am just pointing out that what you are considering cannot be. If it could, it would have already.

I am seeing the opposite taking place here on my screen !

This has been done a plane this small..but not packed like this..with this kinda innovations to place the elements to make it go really fast and economically. He-162 was a bit this size with an e-seat. 195 mm longer actually and 840 mm higher ( due to engine installation ).

Really now.

Hmm, the F-105 with a wing loading over .90 shot down Mig-17s with a wing loading of less than .50, me thinks you had better deal with reality.

Indeed Thunderchief F-105 has shoot down one Mig-17 ( or 2 ? ).

It had 670 kg/m2 wingloading F-105.

here you go.. the smallest 5th gen fighter you can get with a bay

at 45 feet in length, its smaller than the JF-17, F-16, and only a tad longer than the Tejas! its got two bays too! and probably better range than the F-35

That could be a good start for a small fighter…and it is smaller than F-35; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

I tought they were the same size since they attended the same competition.

I have a job application in at Boeing…I could advice them..if needed.

Does that go into supercruise as well ?

No. Force on a wing/airfoil/control surface increases with the square of velocity. Hence the need for hydraulic, pneumatic, or electrically actuated control surfaces. These add weight. Another problem that you will run into is that the PW engine you’re using will probably not be able to supply the required electrical power to the radar. And you still have yet to address the fact that the engine you are using will not be able to produce thrust at supersonic speeds. You need a convergent divergent nozzle for this. Which adds weight.

It does doesn’t it..but 1/3 of what it does in a ME-109 for instance.

I would need to see a source for this. It does not sound even a little believable.

Out put is 15.3 kN SFC is 0.45..whereas J-20 has 360 kN out put and SFC 2.0 at AB.