The PZL-30 was cancelled, and has no chance of coming back.

Rectangular nozzles lead to a loss in engine efficiency. Also, thrust vectoring nozzles are quite heavy. As for the rocket engine, you need to factor into account the size of oxidizer tanks, not just fuel tanks. And in particular, you will need the safety mechanisms required for preventing a large explosion during any mishap due to the presence of oxidizer onboard. Really, honestly, you should get rid of the rocket idea. I also think you are greatly underestimating the size and weight required for avionics and weapons stores.

No I wasn’t going to resurrect the Scorpion. I just figure their aim was bright.

Idea is t keep this really simple…and the nozzles aren’t anything like in Raptor.

I was thinking suntin like the RATO rockets in F-104…but instead of providing 578 kN they just provide 6 kN each for a minute or two. Really easy patented invention with fast “strap on” locking can only be used once ( weight each 90-120 kg )…but both have an ignition button of their own..and can be used separately. Definitely the rockets would only extent this kites envelope to supersonic at high with initial speed of around mach 1 with turbofan.

There is a 95% chance this will never be built. I might do a flying model just to see how well that lay out performs…I might also need some serious help in defining the shape/foil/washout etc for the wing/lifting surface. I could also build small balsamodels to see how they glide ( 1/20 scale etc ).

Being really small and weighing just 1500-1800 kilos empty this should not be insanely costly as the big fighter jet projects are. BD-10 project was made with just 60 mio USD back in 1980ies ( and that teached a big lesson for all of us ).

I almost entirely certain that this will not work. The PW500 series engines have a bypass ratio much too large for supersonic flight, even when they are “jumped” there using rockets. As you increase in mach number, the optimally efficient bypass ratio drops. At some point, you really lose the ability to produce a meaningful amount of thrust with a high bypass engine. I also think you are greatly overestimating the drop in drag in the supersonic regime.

More importantly, supersonic aircraft by necessity always have variable convergent divergent exhaust nozzles, which this engine lacks. It is not possible to achieve supersonic flight without this feature, as for an engine to produce thrust, it needs to have a exhaust velocity greater than the aircraft velocity (as I recall at least), and for a turbine engine to produce the required M > 1.0 exhaust velocity, a de-laval type nozzle is required.

I would strongly advise you to give this line of thinking up- it’s not tenable for quite a few reasons.

Also, you may find this interesting.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]215619[/ATTACH]
It’s the PZL-230F Skorpion. It’s a subsonic, ground attack aircraft though. It was never completed.

I hear you…..so the only option is to close the air intakes for supersonic flight with the rockets and shut the PW535F and use it only to loiter and ground attack duties and to gain altitude to go fast with rockets.

I like Scorpion…maybe I team up with the polish aviation industry to get this going.

Thanks for the comments..this keeps me focused better..I seem to loose focus and concentration while working on this till 2 o’clock in the morning.

To the exhaust nozzles…this has even stealth thrust vectoring..originally I wanted to make VTOL…but had to settle for STOL since the engine power is no longer adequate with this “inhalator engine”.

You are only seeing half of this AC now since I am concealing all details that make this actually work…for certain reasons mentioned here earlier.

The main point in this is the massive drag reduction by cutting the size down considerably..then is the simple wing and diminutive engine/pilot pod that keeps the weight down…I have hard time figuring how to make this heavier than 1500 kilos empty. Almost definitely this can carry 3500 kg payload…I mean Mtow 5000 kg. This needs about 7-8 kN to go 950-1000 km/h without external load..which makes it possible to fly 2 hours perhaps even longer…and go high as 18-20 km..to start the rocket engines..see what I mean..this can almost go to the moon this little thing with 170 kg/m2 wingloading and almost nonexistent frontal drag.

– – – Updated – – –

AMX and Gripen are too small to hold internal bays.
as for your design, you need space for the air intake, engine, bays, fuel, and avionics.
if your plane is a modern day Me-163, a country would find it more cheaper and efficient to rely on S-300 instead

That is where you are wrong..this has all air intakes, and 2 bays for small mach 4 AAMs, ****load of fuel and state of the art avionics.

Me -163 was 25% bigger than this..this beats Me-163 on both rocket power and turbofan power alone. Only drawback is that this flies even shorter time on rocket power than Me-163..but when it does it goes 3 times faster.

The size alone indicates that in comparison using the scale factor this GM needs only 11 kN to go 1130 km/h ( top speed of Komet and 17 kN out put ).

Really.
When it is three feet shorter than the Mig and in the diagram is actually longer.

Try again.

The Russian cannon is powerful but only to the aircraft carrying it, he can’t shoot it long enough to not shoot himself down, BRILLIANT!

The russian 30 mm cannon is 50% lighter and also has 1/3 of the ammo. It is in scale all right..just the arrangement is different.

Anyhow..seems that this is the smallest AC to carry M61; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMX_International_AMX

So the size of the modern fighters is also dependent on the gun it carries…as here Flogger disintegrates almost as it fires the rotary cannon at MACH 2.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]215588[/ATTACH]

AMX top speed is just above 900 km/h.

Was this too small to carry GAU-12; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_ARES

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG9LlHcX8lg

[ATTACH=CONFIG]215584[/ATTACH]

Small fighter again…what is this ?

Russian do very light guns, due to the small resource. GS-301 – 1500 shots. Particularly impressive is the difference between the GS-6-30 and GAU-8

[ATTACH=CONFIG]215559[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]215560[/ATTACH]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gryazev-Shipunov_GSh-6-30
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger

Recoil is 5500 kilos..that should only be fired behind !

I think that at the present level of technology, it is impossible to create a complete fighter with a takeoff weight of less than 8 – 10 tons. We’ll have to cancel the installation locator, medium-range missiles, supersonic speed, good ejection seat and so on.

That is the common understanding as we know it right now.

My rocket assisted supersonic jump to supercruise mode with commercial PW535F might be new to many. It might need special tuning for the inlets to access higher acceleration for the airflow.

😉