In order to design something (even with quotation marks), one must base its design on some mathematical grounds. Otherwise such pure drawings remind me of myself: I once claimed I have designed a car-shaped time machine when I was 4 years old…

But when people ask “how”, if I can’t show any calculation but only say “I tested a prototype it does” or “it could”, I would be ignored at best, or declared mad at worst.

@topspeed: I will repeat myself that you don’t use ANY number to backup anything you are saying. Without that, people are right when they do trash talk your works (to be frank, I am one of those people). That being said; i will try to do a relatively more constructive critisism this time; Like I’ve said before, you have some fatal problems in your designs.

a) You are working purely on 2d sheet, and on 3d you don’t have enough volumes to fit half the things you say inside the airframe.
b) You are ignoring several dozen items that necessarily exist inside the aircraft.
c) you are shrinking the size of many components that exist inside the aircraft.

————

And about wood. You need VOLUME. Wood is good for cheap consruction; its easy find, easy to machine easy to assemble, easy to repair etc etc. You don’t need any of that in a fighter aircraft. Once again, you need VOLUME.
Best woods for such application barely have ~1/5 tensile/compression strength of Aluminium, and they have ~1/4 density. So they are NOT light. They offer *LESS* strength per weight as Aluminium in the best circumstances, and waste 5 times internal volume. They are also very weak in shear strength, and they have much lower fatigue life, and resistance to environmental conditions. They are NOT good materials, period.

I finally had the time and sleep to be able to answer to few ( remaining ) Andraxxus points, which are pretty good.

1. Leonardo DaVinci also just drew things…and nobody ever claimed or asked his mathematical skills. I have an A from SATs for advanced calculus.

Here is his wing design enclosed.

2. Wood is one thing, but woodcomposite is another ( 70% stronger than aluminium and ½ the weight…Duramold according to H.Hughes ).

Here is also my VAWT ( volumetric ) wing…it has 2.4 kg/m2 loading. I consider that a number.

Finally, and this is important, there are a number of things that just don’t shrink. The pilot and his life support necessities, weapons, etc.

Yes this is an important notion. Several jets had very small cabin and pilots needed to be under 6 ft for many years. This small jet I have sketched would carry an 6 ft 3 in tall pilot. There are also very small ejection seats if the speed of the ejection is well below the speed of sound…and weigh only 25 kilos..or even less. GM-1 possibly due to its low operational speed could have used very simple non zero-zero ejection seat ( albeit a real 0-0 ejection seat is displayed roughly ). Also a company could think of one..it could be demanding….but who knows ?

Small airplanes do not carry enough sensors, communications/EW, weapons or fuel for today’s operations (DCA, policing, OCA, strike, CAS, Etc.).

Sensors such as long range radar with state of the art modes allows you to target incoming cruise missiles, ID and target enemy aircraft at long range with low probability of detection by that enemy. IRST allows you to ID and target enemies without EM emissions. ESM allows you to ID enemies and their determine bearing in relation to ownship. Add volume, weight, power and cooling.

Communications data links provide interoperability and data sharing with friendly air and ground assets. Electronic warfare keeps your jet from getting shot down quickly. Add volume, weight, power and cooling.

Multiple weapons allow you to put multiple enemies at risk simultaneously. While you might not kill them all, you will cause them to go defensive and alter their strategy. Add volume, weight, power and cooling (yes, smart weapons require power and cooling).

Fuel is energy which allows you to go fast at full throttle, go to high altitude quickly, go long distances or loiter for long periods of time. Add volume and weight.

There is a substantial financial burden associated with operation and support of any airplane, no matter how simple or complex an the airplane. These “logistics tail” costs include manpower (pilots and maintenance personnel paychecks), training and facilities (runways, buildings/hangars, infrastructure and utilities) – lots of money before the first airplane arrives at the airbase.

If an air force has limited budget, it would limit the number of different types and thus the number of different logistics tails it has to pay for. Then it becomes a trade study to select how much goodness in enough – balance the mix of sensors, comms/EW, weapons and fuel to fit the budget. But you can bet the result will not be a small airplane.

I acknowledge all this, but I disagree that small AC if well managed would cost more than the biggies. Small AC cannot carry a huge amount of arsenal to distance targets…that is for sure ( but it could fly more sorties if needed ). But for purely defensive purposes for a small nation it would be very desirable ( if possible ) IMHO.

I am pretty convinced that a small ac would cost less and be cheaper to maintain.

Could it prevent a ballistic missile attack…I doubt it…only politicians with clever policies might do that or an educated and wise president with a good perception and history.

My facial expressions would certainly be worth seeing, if any of topspeed designs flew, full-size ones, that is.
I also know a lot of names, but so what? And what does this other website have to so with anything?

A part of the topic is that topspeed here is talking (writing) out of his a**e, as has been proven by some contributors who actually seem to have some knowledge of the subject. I am not one of them.

Sadest thing about you is that you cannot think with your own brains like several commenters here have been able to do. I still wish you all the best.

WOW!! Now we are getting there… The name dropping is starting, and the designs just keep getting fancier… In case someone is following this nonsensical thread: what did I tell you? And there may be more to come…

I will be very interested to see you facial expressions as this solar ship flies. If I only knew your name…..like I do Puranen and several other AF chiefs. But it is part of you bullying nature that you want to shoot from the shadow…like most trolls in the web do.

Honestly folks if I was a US citizen or british…you would have already hanged this guy high…right ? Not a single comment on the topic. It is also true that the maanpuolustus.net is not only infested with several suspicious elements, but it is runned by the true finns ( and most likely you are their troopers ).

Topspeed, let me try to put this simply.

Some parts of an aircraft scale pretty well. A jet engine/fuel supply is an example of that… if you need less thrust you can go with a physically smaller engine and that smaller engine can be expected to burn less fuel.

Some parts of an aircraft can be built in various sizes, but only with compromises in performance. A radar would be a good example here… you can build one small enough to fit in the nose of a missile but it won’t perform like a radar sized to fit in the nose of an F-14.

Finally, and this is important, there are a number of things that just don’t shrink. The pilot and his life support necessities, weapons, etc.

What this means as a practical matter is that you can only make an aircraft so small. How small? Just about the size of a Gripen or T-50 in a 4th generation fighter, larger if you want a 5th generation fighter.

You could make a smaller aircraft by removing most of the things that really don’t scale down well… the pilot, the weapons, etc. At that point you are really talking about a drone of some kind.

So if you want to amuse yourself drawing fantasy planes that don’t serve any useful purpose, focus your attention on drones/cruise missiles or similar. Imagine yourself up a fast stealthy drone that perhaps carries a pair of Cuda missiles, fires them, and then returns to base.

Start with RATTLRS:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]242097[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]242098[/ATTACH]

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/rattlrs.html

Here is a test item deploying submunitions at supersonic speed:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]242099[/ATTACH]

Imagine those submunitions were…

[ATTACH=CONFIG]242100[/ATTACH]

Ok, so RATTLRS wasn’t reusable and would need to be larger in order to incorporate a landing gear, etc, but that could at least hypothetically be done. What you would end up with would be a short range M3+ interceptor. It would take off (perhaps vertically with a rocket booster) climb and accelerate very quickly out to a few hundred NM, make one pass firing both its missiles, then make a giant turn to return to base.

Would it be useful? No… what you would have would essentially be an incredibly complex and expensive very long range strategic SAM system that would need a nearby runway to recover its drones, but at least it could conceivably be built, which is more than can be said of the sketches you have been presenting.

I think I have to carry the orders of the ex-commander of finnish air force Lauri Puranen and not to intervene any further with any new design around this matter.

I do develope the VAWT and then the solar/electric hybrid passenger plane ( possibly Hippiäinen first to gain knowledge ). I have specs for the solar airliner…at 40 meter span it has 30 passengers and 150 kts cruise at 50 000 ft. The solar energy planes with electric engines large dia props can go fast at high ( Helios went 7 x faster at 100 000 ft than on the sea level ). This is so advanced that it needs only 50% more power for the ascent from the batteries in addition to the solar power.

It has better powerloading/wingloading ratio than the U-2 spyplane.

The question you asked me.

Well I dunno if it really has much weight, but AF officer circles in Finland are a kinda small group so it actually may have some concequences as the previous AF commander actually didn’t like the idea of me even discussing about a stealth airplane in the first place. I have no idea why he said it.

So I think this subject may be a bit heated potato for the time being.

I remember they also annihilated the aeroplane developement thread altogether in the finnish site…and a moderator was pretty mad when he found out that this “s**t” is also being published here at the Key Publishing Forum. I think the Maanpuolustus.net is being runned by the “basic finns” -party members ( IIRC ). Nothing to do with the AF commander.

Finland has a bit odd history with own indigenous aeroplane designs; many have actually failed to meet the standards required for a real practical use. I recall the son of the Karhumäki who did also make an entry for the basic jet trainer competition was told not to proceed with the entry as the government has sole right to choose what they want and not even consider the indigenous design. This has roots in the post war practises of the government.

Also the few basic trainers in use today are actually excellent aeroplanes, but planes after the war were pretty disastrous as they used spare engines and bad glues etc.

I think some UAV sorta indiginous developement in on the way as we speak.

M1 was not my point, I gave you the benefit of making mistakes/typos….the whole sentence was my point. And to reply your question: yes, but what does that have to do with anything?

Which question ?

Possibility to glide would be very stealthy as you cannot ever hear the tiny stealth aircraft approaching…no heat signature either.