It is almost as if the 50% scale isn’t small enough if you want to make it really small. But the fuselage cannot be squeezed to be thinner than shoulders are when squeezed a bit ( the velomobile dudes can go to 400 mm shoulder widht, but that is not very comfortable ).
I found better pictures from the subject on the other computer.
Somehow I have a haunch that it could also be capable to do a loop ( at least ) and a roll ( above the air field in safe altitude for a dead stick landing ).
What would be the reason to do a scale plane of a P-51 if you cannot perform some sorta primitive ACM/dogfight with it.
your sentence from Bill Lear was said before MArcel Dassault same sentence?
I have no idea…may be we ought to check it out ?!
Aim is to make a sleek belly cargo storage for golf clubs of the air inlet scoop system.
DATA;
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-64161.html
There are plenty of providers but none of them are particularly cheap nor scale…and none is an H-model;
Stewart Mustang; http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/kitspages/stewartMustang.php
Thunder Mustang http://www.globalplanesearch.com/warbirds/combat/papa_51_ltd/
FK http://www.fk-lightplanes.com/news.php?ln=2&id_g=2
Jurca http://www.jurcaplanswest.com/MJ-77.htm
TITAN; http://www.titanaircraft.com/t-51d.php
Loehle Mustang 5151 http://www.lightsportaircraftpilot.com/loehle_P51_mustang/index.html
hilarious
Carl Haglund is the swedish folk partys representative..his predecessor when F-18 was acquired was also a SFP member Elisabeth Rehn…but there was no Gripen at that time..or just a proto that rolled on the runway.
I haven’t heard of a voice for a indigenous stealth fighter yet.
Could this small fighter be possible..totally stealthy !?
I checked the AIM9X size…and voila another missile added !
OTOH there is a slight inconsistency left….the Paralay pink image and wiki image are still exactly same height from nacelle bottom to canopy top..if the AOA is changed the canopy ought to be higher.
Here is the wiki image ( yellow ) positioned atop a photo. I leaves the Paralay image then to 8.99 m2 for the frontal.
You can see the same from Trident photo…canopy is higher.
No, paralay is correct. The T-50 patent drawing seems to have a slight nose down attitude, which may make it larger than what it is at 0 AOA.
Okay….that is a plausible assumption. Trident’s T-50 pic also indicates similar.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]227863[/ATTACH]
I think your calculation is correct…but the image is not 100% correct.
I am amazed that F-22 frontal turned out to be a tad bigger than PAKFA.
Also Sukhoi T-50 PAKFA added to give idea.
Also the J-31 pic in my thread has been distorted in the web. I corrected it and made a chart for the missiles carrying capabilities with J-31 and YF-23.
No as efficient as the one with F-22 ?
Every good theory needs statistics to back it up..so does this !
This would also indicate that there cannot be a missile carrying mach 2 + jet that can shoot one BWR missile and quide it with its own radar that is as an aeroplane shorter than 7 meters long.