Here is your quote:

So lets review my math from school, shall we? Lotus Exige 913kg – 800 kg (your imaginary car when equipped with enough batteries for 100km range) = -113kg.

You are claiming to have designed a car that seats 6, has gull wing doors and a hatchback, and weighs 113kg less than a Lotus two seater sports car.

There is a 2-seater VW that is just 300 kg empty.

Lotus Exige, 914kg:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]242127[/ATTACH]

So you have a car that weighs 113kg-less-and seats 6? With gull wing doors and a hatchback?

Tip for the future, when you want to lie, make up a plausible lie.

I never lie, but I am sorry to have told you about it…because I am under the NDA still about it for few years time.

It is my invention but still. I think we will build the model anyway…as we have a customer for the prototype.

How is 1200 kg under 900 kilos…do you have math in schools ?

Here is another finnish car; http://money.cnn.com/video/technology/2015/05/06/toroidion-1mw-electric-finnish-supercar.cnnmoney/

This was developed kilometer away from our start up; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsWyoqgYblI

Such a layout would not allow the aircraft to rotate for takeoff. It is desired to be able to rotate an aircraft to increase the angle of attack.

If the rear wheels came up first (like normal taildraggers) you would be teetering on the single main gear forward which would be very unstable. Would also be very tricky to land.

No it is not tricky….I had an R/C model like that.

As you gain speed the tail comes up and the ailerons become effective, but your planes weight is still on the wheel…think about it…it means enermous weight saving.

You can rotate as much as you want…ever seen a Mustang take off ? Is it not able to rotate ?

Now six people fit?

Six people is like 7 ( seven ) in Tesla…two on the jump seat at the back…and less luggage in this mode.

It was around 1200 kg with batteries for 1000 km and under 800 kg with only 100 km range of batteries ( which was an option to get it cheaper for everyone ).

Tesla is 2 metric tons in weight ( 2000 kg ).

Regular car here is around 1500 kg ( VW Golf etc ).

Why did you not claim 640 mph, while you were making your claims? What do Skip Holm and Tsunami have to do with your RC (?) model? I think I have made my point, especially if someone cares to read topspeed’s electric car nonsense, too…:)

Tsunami was also fitted with R&R Merlin was as my intented racer. Someone from Norway actually offered a pair of Mossie Merlins for it, but since there was no funding also this bird wasn’t goin to fly. Top speed for propeller driven ac cannot much exceed the TU-95 Bear bomber speed of 950 km/h ( 590 mph )…as the buffeting may brake the wing as it is not designed for trans sonic speed at low altitude. Foil was thin and almost symmetric so it could have gone fast.

It is not nonsense…all 6 people fitted in nicely…but it was an electric car. Car mechanic at the OAMK ( vocational college ) said it looks like from the future…not from the distant future, but from the future we all can agree upon. It was just clean with 2 huge gull wing doors and one hatch at the rear. It had huge internal capacity for stuff carrying, if some folks were left out ( I mean really huge ). It was also 100% moose hit resistent…by the nature of its stuctural lay out the moose wasn’t able to enter from the wind screen ( I find this to be a huge issue here in Finland ).

It is a lot like announcing that you have designed a new SUV with three rows of seats that is only 2.7 meters long and two meters wide. It seats 8 people in comfort and gets great fuel economy at the same time… you could park it like a Smart Car on crowded urban streets!

Sounds like a great vehicle right?

That is essentially what he is doing. Imagining airplanes that couldn’t possibly be built for the simple reason that there is no way to fit everything inside.

There is no wasted space in a modern fighter. If you shrink a plane down by what? 50%… what do you take out? Now he wants to add internal weapons as well? You can’t just wave your hands in the air and say “make everything smaller.” Every fighter design team in the world is looking for every possible way to cut weight, save space, etc. What brilliant discovery has he made that allows his “designs” to achieve what the world’s real design teams can’t?

This is funny. I am in a start up center and our first project last year with a dude ( mechanical engineer ) whose brother will fly on Space Ship II ( in near future ) was to design an electric car with 1000 km range and able to sustain power in the batteries even at -20 C temperatures. We applied funding for it but no one showed up ( as it takes around 300 mio € to develope one for regular certified traffic ). The car was CdA lover by 25-30% of the Honda Insight ( that has the lowest of the factory built ) but hold 1 person more….and had an insulated structure for the accus and due to the woodcomposite/aluminum hybrid structure ( chassis ) was as strong as the aluminium cars but was 300 kg lighter and thus needed less batteries…by far ( also for the lower CdA ). I think it was a bit longer than 4 metres.

Thing is that we are so used to think the car has to be like a horse carriage with the seating lay out that no one seems to be able to think out of the box and see the things clearly as a spatial and aerodynamical problem….and thus they all produce similar looking cars with a bit different caking on top.

What every fighter team is forced to do is to use 190-360 kN of thrust engine(s) and 6 amraams and 2 AIM9X missiles inside…or certain ( similar ) amount of other ordnance…and capability to fly long distances at over M1 with aerial refueling…and 1000 gizmos + BVR radar etc. This certainly results different looking aeroplanes than the GM-1 displayed here in this thread. They are definitely cool looking and capable aeroplanes.

Only very little can be altered…but if you change from combustion engines to electric engines you can still take giant leaps in developement…as the electric vehicles are still in infancy.

Honestly, I was wondering if you were sober or not. I do not comment these if I have been drinking, which does not happen very often. And I am not ashamed to tell anyone that I could best be described as an atheist.
But enough of this, unless topspeed goes over the top at full speed…:)

I claimed modestly 590 mph speed for my Tigeshark II racer in 2004…and I was considered mad. Now 2014 Skip Holm claimed he had clocked 586 mph with Tsunami.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UI4TG1AGU6Y ( ..at 5 minutes of this video ).

I am getting tired of this, as you do not seem to understand: Building a model, even a flying one, does not mean you have designed an airplane. It means you have designed (and built) a flying model, and congratulations for that. I do not think I could, or would, do even that. But a model is a model, and an airplane is an airplane. Systems, airworthiness, power plant, approvals etc… But this should be clear to anyone with even basic understanding of flying and designing airplanes.

So you think I should be commenting on the model aeroplane site or what ?

One thing occurred to me while I was making the other root wing panel for my aeroplane designs 1/3 model…Finny as we know many finnish pilots are also heavy drinkers on their past time.

Have you been sober when typing these comments here ? How about church going…do you go regularly…or are you an agnostic more or less ?