I admire your creativity and persistence, but…

Do you not see with your eyes, but only through calculations that would most likely not deliver in practice. This is just my opinion and it is purely based only on drawings you are posting. I can be dead wrong.
Somehow, all of them look like the plane as creative and interesting it is, they are all 15-30% too small to say the least.

I accept your side views where there is NOOO space for radar or any cockpit electronics whatsoever. A small watermelon could fit in front of those pilots feet right in the very tip of the nose of the plane, that’s about it.

Also, 4 AIM-120s carried by a plane those small wings?? I love the idea, don’t get me wrong, but it looks so wrong when it comes to wing area/weight/size/internal volume, and I have pretty good sense for forces and mechanics.

Even if the trust was sufficient, the wing area and size of the body would not fly well with such armament. Aerodynamics of the plane would be destroyed as soon as those missiles are attached to the body. Just imagine how much the whole plane would suffer if one of the four AIM-120s was launched only due to weight distribution within such small craft.

Pilot would not want to fly for more than few minutes in this cockpit either.

sorry to be negative. Like I said, I love the design, and I always check in here to see what new you come up with with pleasure, but plane is shrunk too much.

best regards

Hi Wanderlei !

Thanks for your input again. I appreciate it. Yes these are smallish, but hey X-29 was only 14.7 m long and had a span of 8.3 m whereas SU-47 Berkut was a 22.6 m long monstrosity…my craft is even in shortness compared to X-29 than what X-29 was to SU-47 Berkut.

I bet you are right about the missiles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_X-29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-47

Then again Siegrfid Gunther had even smaller forward sweep craft underway in 1945.

http://www.luft46.com/heinkel/hep1076.html

Bugatti 100 was even smaller and was to be militarized too; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugatti_Model_100

Two latter models with propellers were supposed to go 880-885 km/h in 1939-1945 !

Just a tad bigger than the MINIKITE…no wait a minute De Monge designed Bugatti was even smaller !

——————

There is a certain system here that keeps it steady….in architecture in a way.

The fact that it can fly really slow and economically ( 5200 km ferry range ) would make it a good CAS aeroplane.

Here I counted that at very high altitude the craft could speed up from M1 to M4 speed in few minutes.

It would be using a special kinda rocket assist that can be reused in flight for few seconds to break free from adversary or catch the adversary..which ever is the case.

The plane mtow would rise to 2600 kg and burnable rocket fuel weighs 500 kg. Also lesser amount of rocket fuel will do I assume. To intercept biggies effectively the 400-500 kg would be minimum.

I have a pretty clear picture how it would be done, but I won’t draw it ( I don’t wanna escalate a new arms race ). It needs also aerodynamical changes as well as technical stuff ( a lot ).

I am very happy with the thrust numbers I got with 2 x 6 blade fans.

I get often mumbojumbo about the kamikaze nature of my designs.

You can see for yourself. :highly_amused:

Thrust calculator actually counts the top speed at 887 mph ( 1427 km/h ) tips at 307 m/s ( using 900 hp @ rpm 4527 ) !

There isn’t much thrust ( 1.8 kN ) but it sounds interesting ( better watch out at the test flite conditions ). Vne has to be near Mach 1.5 ( below 30 000 ft ).

Minikite is also 2 m smaller in span than a Me-109 but has 1m2 more wing area and 1 ton less mass ( metric ). Lotsa room for fuel too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109

Cockpit is 20 cm wider than in the most narrow velomobile.

Amazing isn’t it ?

Outer proportions similar to F-86; http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_F-86_Sabre

If tuned for racing this could pull 715 mph speeds at low altitude.

In par with Orenda engined Sabre possibly; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_Sabre

A tad bigger than XP-77 but less wing loading and span.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_XP-77

THIS IS MY OWN DESIGN…so the finnish community has no part in this whatsoever.

I am actually contemporalily banned from there.

Trying to invent the impossible…a stealth twin engine prop ac to compete with the heavies.

Now I have a plane that is carried on a SUPER EAGLE orbital carrier with AWACS capabilities and dropped from there to fight an attacker using a data link from the mother ship.

Is this a plausible new way to cut down the costs I assume it can obtain Mach 3-5 speeds if dropped from really high altitude.

Let’s discuss this.

Mother ship can ” fly ” at 28 000 km/h but this small prop plane just mach 3-5 in dive from the mother ship…is it vulnerable with return engines of 800 hp together…doing just Mach 0.9 when flying at combat wing loading of 100 kg/m2 able to turn at + 10 G stresses ?

I figure the AWACS is 500 000 000 usd ship ( capable to deliver 7 000 kg to orbit LEO ) and these little guys just 8-10 000 000 usd a piece.

Specs of the KIKKA aka MINIKITE are close to this one; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugatti_Model_100

With this engine just even ( possibly 1000-1025 km/h due to the thinner wing foil sections ); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoming_TIO-541

Guess you wonder the Super EAGLE drops wings at the end of the MACH 5 run at 76 KM and turns into a rocket with an SSME ( space shuttle main engine 1.8 mN ).

Here is a stunt you could pull with 2 Star Eagle crafts…and one TINMAN lander capsule.

Send one SE 8 months beforehand to Jupiter ( closer route to Saturn ) and then send Tinman and two service modules seme route ( via Mercury using solar sails ).

Thanks Propstrike..this could mean a new era in space flight.

One fellow counted me the temperature in 80 km at M8.

Can you believe it..Shuttle was + 1500 C here ( outside temperature +5000 C ).