It means you just plain lying about what your paper-plane is supposed to be as your scale is false and as the engineers wrote, so is every thing else.

Oh yes and as by your “scale” you have about eighteen inches between the lowest part of your aircraft and the ground, if it actually got off the ground it would need a runway miles longs as it would be impossible to rotate till it was a dozen or so feet off of the ground.
The very high performance F-106 used to use aero-braking to shorten its quite long landing roll, if yours tried that it would leave the engines lying on the runway, at best.
Or would it do like the B-47 and deploy its drag chute before it even hit the ground, as its go-kart size wheels can not even come close to stopping it, brilliant!

Those planes would..I have ½ the wing loading…due to bigger wing area and light composites. Use of smaller engines and radar and less fuel also plays a role.

F-20 has 18.6 m2 wing area and 12500 kg mass so it has 672 kg/m2 loading at take off.

G1 has 29.4 m2 wing area and thus with 9700 kg Mtow only 319 kg/m2 wing loading.

Thanks for the comment RpR it was very exhilarating again.

RpR !

The weight of the F-20 was under 6 000 kgs empty; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-20_Tigershark

Surely the composites will allow few hundred kilos lighter aircraft in the same size class.

Ok I’m a design engineer so use AutoCAD and Solidworks daily. So I’m experienced with scale. I agree wit rpr here. If you’re working to a recognised scale what is it? 1:10, 1:20?? It looks like you’re using a CAD package. In that case you’d draw everything at 1:1 in model space and then scale your viewport in paper space.

Yes I am using 1:1 scale to draw and print/export via MS paint.

FD see the Hippi gear as airborne..it sorta bends in when on the ground…plenty of space for rotation. It is also a design feature..the wing is already set at 3.2 AOA ( pre set incident ).

Liar, liar pants on fire!

If I translate this this to english it means you don’t believe what I just said ?

Here is a picture of a service man standing, at a safe distance from an F-16.
Now I will give you that the front wheel is smaller than I remember them being having spent a few days around F-16s years ago but the rear wheel and tire are far, far, far larger than the impossibly small one you put on your paper-airplane.

450mm–ROFL– well that is a little under 18 inches in diameter therefore from YOUR scale drawing your pilots head is around 13 inches in diameter, which means your pilot is not six-foot three but more like
As I said your scale drawing are not to any scale except in your mind.
Your walking man, if standing totally erect would come up to the base of the canopy of the F-16 you are trying to use for comparison.
At least that shows the farce of your scale drawings.

Here is a better picture to show the scale of how high an F-16 is and how large the wheels and tires actually are.

Face it, you’re busted as far as you wannabe aircraft being totally impossible by the simple reality of what actually is and can be.

Like I said I like your enthusiasm on the subject ! I have a composite fighter that weighs 1/3 less than a F-16..so it is perfectly balanced in every aspect..believe me !

10 m x 2.3 m hangar doors vent less heated air into the outdoors at winter !

Well now looky here, his paper-plane has a front wheel smaller than his pilots head and a when a tire is mounted about the same size as his pilots head.

Hmm, that means the brakes on his plane, as the rear wheels appear at maximum are in the rear no larger than 13 inches as nothing larger would work on a wheel that small; therefore the front brake could be no larger than the parking-brake on a large sedan.

That means instant brake fade and failure as brakes of such small swept area simply cannot stop an aircraft of that size empty much less loaded.

But then from his drawings his plane is ,( now whereas before it stood higher than a Hustler) so low to the ground maybe his pilot stops the aircraft the same way Fred Flintstone stopped his car by dragging his feet on the ground.

At the same time, where the front wheel is on his paper-plane, it will be as susceptible to ground loops as a tail-dragger.

I dunno where ya get ya measures, but the main wheels are 450 mm dia. Tail fuse is 1/5 wider than F-16 fuselage. :applause:

Hangar door needs to be just regular car port height !

There are 2 wheels at the front !