I am merely trying to made everyone see what we left behind when we went to fly mach 2+ and forgot the prop aviation altogether….in this instance. No one in the industry would have the guts to come up with these.

As far as high speed propeller air craft are concerned, this site is porbably one of the best on the web.

Those boys go very fast and at what amounts to zero altitude, with altitude base on height above sea level of the terrain.

Tsunami, Pond Racer and the up coming, for almost thirty years already, Shockwave have tried the smaller is better with middling results.

This aircraft, a duplicate of a 1930s Hughes racer, which was tediously made from scratch using measurments taken by had, sadly, liked the Tsumani, killed it owner and builder when a part failer close to the ground left no room for recovery.

For a truly high speed prop plane that has a range more than a few hundred miles, small simply is an impossibility.

So how come XF-84 went 670 mph then ?

All racers in RENO are made to go clearly under the speed of sound with straight thick wings.

A: the sound it made was unbearable to the pilot.

B: No not all racers at Reno used straight wing.

If you have multiple times more power to weight ratio..than in a 920 km/h moving TU-95…shouldn’t you be able to go supersonic in a prop plane ?

Good grief!

No.

Ex-Blue Angels leader Capt. Gregory McWherter, was removed April 18 from his post as executive officer at the U.S. Naval Base Coronado in Southern California by Vice Admiral William French, commander of Navy Installations Command based on initial findings of an ongoing investigation into allegations of misconduct and an “inappropriate command climate” at the U.S. Navy Blue Angels.

http://aerobaticteams.net/news/2014/former-blue-angels-leader-under-investigation.html

The latest from PC central in Washington.
In DC, whoring around is part of the right of politics, but for men who fight and die so politicians can keep getting their paycheck, a man acting like a man is forbidden.

Exactly. I am tired of mixing reports. On the USAF side we talk about the experience of one pilot. The Luftwaffe for example had TCTP training regime long before the 70ies. It includes DACT and flying the plane to the limit. If you do not believe this read “Mit Überschall durch den kalten Krieg” in which a Marineflieger pilot describes his time on the F-104 in the late 1960ies.

One should remember also that had a shooting war in Europe looked to be on the horizon, the U.S.A.F. would have done as they did in Korea and sent F-106 squadrons over.

Air Force tests had shown that the Six could take on the Mig-21 heads-up in a dogfight and while the Six’s missiles were not long rang, its radar system could see aircraft coming long, long before it could fire or an enemy would have any idea they were in the air.
Add to that, that the British F2 Lighting was an extremely good dog fighter, fully equipped with enough guns to do the job quickly the only aircraft the Soviets had that would not be shot out of the sky comparatively easily was the Mig-21.

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

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!

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 !

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.