I made poll at a finnish science site about what we should purchase…and 46% favoured Gripen and 1% F-35.
I estimate FA-18 Super Hornet is more popular than F-35. High cost to maintain and operate the F-35 is scaring the folks alot.
Rafale and Eurofighter are in the race too. 8% preferred an indigenous design ( which we don’t have ).
But it is not for the people to decide…the AF and politicians will choose the most fitting one for Finland.
Mossie was chosen over P-38 ???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSVfSsu4gMI
Was it lighter…more capable to fly higher ???
Here’s some tuning to to it…80 m span…both for the tow plane and the space plane.
Merry Christmas everyone !
I counted some WAYPOINT figures for the crafts ascent to orbit.
Interesting is that the craft has to reach almost orbital speed below 100 km to be able to fly to orbit.
M3 at 60 km and weight 56 metric tons.
M15 at 85 km and 31 tons weight ( rocket fuel burned away ). Plane is now a SSTO with 120 m long wings.
Needs fuel dopots enroute if LOX/LH2 ship.
Bob counted those; http://exoscientist.blogspot.fi/2015/08/propellant-depots-for-interplanetary.html
Only very low EAS speed could enable very high TAS at very high altitude. Thus increasing the coffing corner right into the space itself…if needed.
https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Equivalent_Airspeed_(EAS)
How about just flying at 50 km altitude with very ” slow ” flying plane…it would still go supersonic at very very low EAS numeber.
I saw the Blade Runner 2049 ….and the Eternal Road at the same time. One after the other that is.
You are quite right about space shuttle…it was not capable to fly level flight in 110 km ..nor was the apollo capsule which broke sound barrier at 150 km altitude ( 115 ? ).
Scotty Winton demostrated that even a 40 hp engine plane can climb close to 34 000 ft or 10 km. ( Helios 100 000 ft with less out put ).
At that altitude there just isn’t nearly enough air available to work with.
There is plenty of air…in fact in 500 km altitude some air can still be detected..but space starts at 100 km for specific reason.
Most aero braking will happen between 80-30 km altitude for space rockets so there has to be lots and lots of air….not for 747 or F-16 though.
Solar Impulse carries half or more of its mass as batteries for nite flying…so a bigger ship can easily carry a small jettisonable rocket.
It is big..it is in wingarea biggest ever designed ( doodled as you prefer )..latest has 110 m span. The lifting fuselage sorta doubles the area.
The flying flat iron/ brick called shuttle actually revealed that the control can be regained ( aerodynamic ) at 110 km altitude. Shuttle design has 50 x more wingloading than this what I am proposing.
I naturally meant the EAS speed….not IAS ( see I am not a pilot ).
Swiss team is actually going to go there in near future.
It cannot happen with a metal bird…it has to be state of the art composite ship.
I have no idea how soon and how this will be militarized, but I assume in 20 years time anyway….military projects get the funding and hence also advance the technology..as does the space engineering.
Sir HOPSALOT !
I had this space going idea too; http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopic.php?f=94&t=116239
Possibly you could reconsider when you realize that this is still coutable with Bernoulli physics.
Vincent Burnelli / De Monge lifting body retought in an solar ship in almost size of the Paul Allen Stratolaunch would actually be able to operate at 46 km ( correct 36 km ) ( in paper the lift force at 900 km/h ) brings the 25 metric tons rocket into that altitude ( 46 km ). I did not even bother count the absolute altitude for the ship without payload but it may be under 50 km ( I hoped for 80 km initially ) I also had no precise data of the air qualities above 45 km ( 38 km ).
Key element to understand this is the low IAS number…the plane will fly at very low IAS number all the way to avoid the coffin corner. You all understand this right ?
Have a good day ladies and gentlemen !
———————————————–
EDIT : Sorry the altitude where I counted the highest altitude with payload is to 36 km…..I had it written down elsewhere and had to recheck it.
So also the empty ceiling has to be lower perhaps just 38-40 km.
Marmalaya. !
I don’t fully get it. One thing I don’t like in aeroplane designing are the Burt Rutan copycats who think that that if they create 10x more absurd aeroplane that Burt was able to do…that it would be totally cool. Burt is exploring aviation just because he is able to do it well…many fail in the same foot steps.
Hopsalot !
Ok I get your point…maybe something else is more suitable for electric aeroplanes than warfare.
I hope someone gets this. As I am pretty fed up trying to make a solar powered aeroplane…as the company who made the Solar Impulse solar cells won’t even answer me.
It is very small circle that is dedicated to solar flight….and the newest solar panels of film thin kind can deliver 30% efficiency ( NASA ) thus tripling the Helios output…if in similar flyer. Helios cruised above 230 km/h at 30 km.
SpudmanWP !
Sopwith Triplane like C-130 gunship are fighting aircraft. An aerodyne capable to fly high if able to fly 100-120 km/h at sealevel will fly 700-800 km/h at 30-35 km. That may have some strategic use. No aeroplane missile can hit it…and it can target anyone it wishes….while using no fossil fuel.