I have to apologize for my countryman topspeed, who keeps posting nonsense on this forum, as he has been doing in several other forums, with the usual consequence of being eventually banned.
There is no need to touch the topic, because I have no understanding of the subject. Neither has topspeed.

Anyone following this post, please feel free to make up your mind, whether topspeed is actually a designer, or a “designer”.

And it is close to 20000 hours, just to get the record straight…

Ok…I might know you then. Let’s then say I am just a model builder until proven othervise.

My friend David “LEX” Luther also never built a real space ship…but he is still trying; https://exospace.wordpress.com/

As for the “foam/plywood composite structure”, you should check Burt Rutan’s work on VariEZ and LongEZ aircraft… He pioneered foam/fiberglass which would be stronger, lighter and also much easier to shape than plywood

I agree that Burt Rutan did “heck of a job” making the highly skilled work force demanding fiberglass very popular and finally managed to break ( after several attempts ) one of the longest / oldest FAI record held by the mr Heinonen’s wooden “Keltiäinen” in endurance flight. Keltiäinen flew anti-clockwise whereas Leshner and Hertzler in Vari-EZ flew taking advantage of the earth rotational movement…as well as the metal plane flying Arnold Ebneter…current record holder. I figure only Ebneter would have superceded the Heinonen’s record had the conditions been similar.

Heinonen was the designer of the Tuuli series basic trainer, which lost to Saab Safir the competition.

Here is the wood work ( below ) by Burt Rutan and Ernst Bugatti ( DeMonge ).

These are plywood/wood designs…I presume. Mr Howard Robart Hughes used Duramold and also the household name Amelia Earhart in her record setting Lockheed Vega. Duramold is a “real wood composite”…invented by colonel Clark of the US Air Force. The new glues ( epoxies ) can make that compressed/heated wood composite x times stronger naturally. If you check out the wood is much lighter than fiberglass….and duramold is 70% stronger than aluminium but weighs just the half ( 750 men carrying HK-1 weighs just 1/3 of the A380 ).

I think you should seek professional help. And I do not mean aviation professionals.

I have to apologize for my countryman Finny…who has commented 6 ( six ) times on this thread…and hasn’t so far even scraped the topic !

He claims to be a pilot with 17 000 ( seventeen thousand ) flying hours…so he must be a pilot. I am happy for him.

—-

Any comments on the lastest hybrid ground attack plane ?

This kind of BS is exactly the reason why topspeed has been banned from every aviation discussion forum in Finland – with the exception of some glider pilots’ forum, as I have been made to understand. Nothing further for now.

Glider folks demand to see my newest lifting fuselage solar/electric planes 3-views. I have conducted flight tests with the model of it and it has proven to be possibly the most efficient aeroplane in aviation history ( at least when it comes to solar/electric flight ). I will prove that it is no BS ( ….this is the language I presume you understand ). It is the most secretive of all of my designs…as it makes possible the solar passenger aviation in very profitable way.

Also the wind turbine community has expressed that the design as I have described it would change the view we perceive the wind turbines today ( efficiency and maintenance costs make it very lucrative mean of getting free energy ).

I think my bann had to do with the excessive amount of comments on my designs….and too many folks starting to use BS words and other foul language.

I am very happy your “puheripuli” is over and I can carry on with my VAWT ( vertical axis wind turbine ) model.

First of all, I do not believe that you have received any funding for any aeroplane project in 2010, or any other year. And if you have, what have you achieved with it? I also have a lot of books on cooking at home, but I still can’t make a decent meal.
And I never said your pictures are pretty…:)

I did get a funding, but I refused it..because I would have had to pay it back and I had a low wing monoplane design in a class that needs no pilots lisence…I felt responsibility…therefore I declined. My idea was to use foam in between plywood sheets to reach very lite structure ( kinda like in Mossie but no balsa )…I had iterated all part and it proved to be super light weight.

I also have customer for my present aeroplane design ( in my blog ). I am working on a revolutionary new VAWT turbine where I test the wing structure ( and the air foil to some extent ) over a long period of time in 1/3 scale to see how the advanced wood composite will be affected for several years out doors in the rain and cold and heat. I discussed it with the chief finnish wind turbine specialist today for an hour over the phone ( I am sure he is also nobody to you ).

Ok you don’t find my pictures pretty…I am glad we got that cleared. I hope you can still read what they contain. 😀

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.

Yes the more the reality kicked in the bigger my design(s) grew ( this was discussed in depth in my other thread ).

Still the jet fighter has smaller engines and smaller radar.

Ground attack aircraft utilizes the advatages of a pusher prop and lifting fuselage ( like the Glider Monkey above ). Also it has rocket assisted power via propellor shafts ( prop engines are 340 hp lycomings ).

Ground AC idea was to be able to loiter a long time using piston engines and for a fast getaway the rocket power ( and for take off with great mass ).

No, you have not. Neither have you ever designed an aircraft. But over the years I have seen quite a few drawings of imaginary airplanes by you.

I don’t get it ? Do you think I got funding for my aeroplane project back in 2010 with just pretty pictures ?

Do you have any idea how many aeroplane design books I have on the selves ?

But anyway. I thank you for your kind words ( I hope the pun was not intented ).

i think you will find this evaluation from 39 min. on interesting,
the implications of the compounding effect of low rcs & speed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqgfjXaJxV8

Yes it would make the difference. I also want to point out that this film prop was made of low quality plywood, but the Luftwaffe Horten 229 was highly developed composite which had originally charcoal dust in the glue ( paint ? ) to make it less visible for radar…so the betterment in RCS could have been as much as 30 % ( 50 % ? )…considering the engines gave it way ( reflects via inlets the turbine blades ). I didn’t watch the whole document so I could be wrong too.

Anyhow I have no intention to penetrate the coastal radar network of any nation with any kinda stealth aircraft ! I just think that a small AF could get what it needs just by having small number of very fast ( affordable ) stealth aeroplanes.

This GM-1 ( GliderMonkey ) is 1/3 of the HO-229 in frontal area and less than half the span etc.

I almost had forgotten this design from few years back hadn’t I seen this somewhere; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saunders-Roe_SR.53
It is a developement for ROE 177….a rocket/jet propulsion hybrid interceptor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saunders-Roe_SR.177

I conducted some testing with the GM-1 small model and it actually flies very stable at M2 equivalent scale speeds ( shot with a sling into the air ). Still displays no real Mach numbers sure, but the thin wing foil actually could enable supersonic speeds ( some unsolved problems certainly remained as it was a sketch more or less ). Also the stealth features were pretty undeveloped at that stage.