Smallest possible interceptor for small nation with stealth feature.

[topspeed3]

If there is a Fox3 then your plane is likely toast. It ain’t coming back. A $1.5 mil AMRAAM-class missile is completely worth it if it means completing the mission and splashing an enemy fighter (of any worth) in one shot.

If the plane in 30ft long then it’s a 30ft “black hole” moving at several hundred miles per hour.

If you are forced to bail, then you failed your mission and your airfield is likely toast. No more missions for you.

Btw, what’s a BRS?

Ballistic recovery system/chute.

Like I said ..a plane RCS size of a pin head or 5 times smaller than F-22 won't get into trouble with missiles.
I mentioned this measures only 28 ft 7 in.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Oh goody, a nice fat, not maneuvering target.

Seriously?

A BRS is not going to save anything. At the moment the Fox3 happens, they know who you are and where you are. The IRST has you. If they wanted to they could guide the AAM right to you using the IRST alone.

Remember that the AAM will be flying an arching profile so it will be coming from above and your upper surface will just act like a gigantic “shoot me” sign.

 

[topspeed3]

Oh goody, a nice fat, not maneuvering target.

Seriously?

A BRS is not going to save anything. At the moment the Fox3 happens, they know who you are and where you are. The IRST has you. If they wanted to they could guide the AAM right to you using the IRST alone.

Remember that the AAM will be flying an arching profile so it will be coming from above and your upper surface will just act like a gigantic “shoot me” sign.

Like I said no heat signature...small RCS..radars useless..only eye detection and guns will apply with this.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-k0rjic3Dleo/UXrS0rTr4gI/AAAAAAAACOk/hxISZxdidco/s1600/GM-1-LA-250-51.jpg

I said earlier..jockey on this won't be flying back on the enemy.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Oh dear lord…
Your engine produces heat which is absorbed by the airframe. Air friction also generates heat which is absorbed by the airframe.

You only have a low RCS from the front when level with the enemy. Even then it’s still larger than you would like due to external AAMs and JATO. Your RCS will be much, much larger once you are hanging from a chute.

What made you think that posing the same question here would be any different than your experience at KP?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Troll posts produce troll topics.


If you want to post cool pics of planes you made up, this isn't the best forum for it. If you go ahead anyway, you should really know what you are talking about if you want to defend it. Your design decisions make no sense, and you appear to lack the technical knowledge to understand the objections people are making. You pencil sketch does not have an RCS 1/5th that of the F-22 except in your own mind. RCS is only very slightly related to size, it is mostly geometry and a bit of materials.


Very small manned planes fall down on several counts. One is the relationship between volume and surface area. If you halve the physical dimensions, the internal volume decreases by 75%. Many parts can't be reduced in size at all - e.g. the pilot, and his cockpit, seat, equipment - and others will not scale linearly with size. If you need x cm thick radar absorbent structure on an F-22, your tiny plane can't just use x/2 cm and get away with it.


I have no objection to a thought experiment topic about what is the smallest possible interceptor. However, this is simply you posting your design and refusing all criticism or suggestions from people who in many cases know a great deal more about designing aircraft than you do.


I will add that Ed Heinemann, in his retirement, was asked by Air International to sketch his ideas for a modern lightweight fighter. He drew up a small canard delta with a single F404 engine. No stealth, minimal avionics, but it was still much larger than your proposal.

 

[aam641]

LA-15 was 2725 kg empty and Gnat about 2175 kg, but Scaled Composite ARES only 1300 kg.
Small AN/APG-67 weighs 72 kilos. 2 AAMs like you said 200-240 kg. Soviet designed GSH-300 cannon about 47 kilos ( + ammo ).
I'd claim Mtow 5000 kg and 2200 kg empty. 28.6 ft long.

And none of the 3 aircraft were supersonic and they wouldn't be able to intercept even an airliner.

APG-67 is a good choice, but it is limited by its small size. 75km detection range against fighter-sized target is very poor and gives very limited BVR capability.
Gsh-30-1 is also fine. 150 rounds will weigh 130kg. Add ammunition feed and the magazine itself and we are back to 200kg.


I would go with 5500kg MTOW and 4450kg loaded weight (1000kg fuel, 100kg pilot, 350kg weapons) and 3000kg empty. And you have a tiny fighter armed with a pair of IR missiles and top speed about M1.5, going against larger, faster and better armed 3rd and 4th generation fighters. From purely cost point of view, buying old MiG-21s would be cheaper.

 

[aam641]

I'd claim that a really small stealth fighter is totally invisible ( to any radar ) and thus more effective in intercepting.

Given that stealth design achieves several orders of magnitude reduction in radar signature, cutting the size in half will have very small effect in proportion.

But if the mission is to fly very low until in position to launch missiles, why bother with a supersonic aircraft? You could mount APG-67 and a pair of AMRAAMs on Cessna 206. It even has the 28 feet you wanted.

 

[quellish]

Given that stealth design achieves several orders of magnitude reduction in radar signature, cutting the size in half will have very small effect in proportion.

But if the mission is to fly very low until in position to launch missiles, why bother with a supersonic aircraft? You could mount APG-67 and a pair of AMRAAMs on Cessna 206. It even has the 28 feet you wanted.

Though today (or tomorrow), if you really had a requirement to make a small interceptor you might exclude the radar - and instead use offboard sensors and a datalink (assuming you can get the bandwidth).

 

[topspeed3]

Oh dear lord…
Your engine produces heat which is absorbed by the airframe. Air friction also generates heat which is absorbed by the airframe.

You only have a low RCS from the front when level with the enemy. Even then it’s still larger than you would like due to external AAMs and JATO. Your RCS will be much, much larger once you are hanging from a chute.

What made you think that posing the same question here would be any different than your experience at KP?

Of course this does produce some heat..but having an engine 1/24th size ( when compared to biggies ) and having it concealed produces way less heat than anyone ever could have anticipated and keeping it at 60% throttle makes the heat source 1/50 from J-20 equivalent..or around 1/100th when concealing considered.
And aircraft doing sneaky approach or loiter at 300 mph definitely won't be producing friction with its airframe. Why would combat aeroplane always have to go mach 2 + ?...that is silly and dumb.
There are different kinda missions...therefore option for external hard points.
What makes you such an expert anyway ? You seem to know much...but can you apply it to this design that is new ?

 

[topspeed3]

You pencil sketch does not have an RCS 1/5th that of the F-22 except in your own mind. RCS is only very slightly related to size, it is mostly geometry and a bit of materials.


Very small manned planes fall down on several counts. One is the relationship between volume and surface area. If you halve the physical dimensions, the internal volume decreases by 75%. Many parts can't be reduced in size at all - e.g. the pilot, and his cockpit, seat, equipment - and others will not scale linearly with size. If you need x cm thick radar absorbent structure on an F-22, your tiny plane can't just use x/2 cm and get away with it.


I have no objection to a thought experiment topic about what is the smallest possible interceptor. However, this is simply you posting your design and refusing all criticism or suggestions from people who in many cases know a great deal more about designing aircraft than you do.


I will add that Ed Heinemann, in his retirement, was asked by Air International to sketch his ideas for a modern lightweight fighter. He drew up a small canard delta with a single F404 engine. No stealth, minimal avionics, but it was still much larger than your proposal.

You are 100% correct that this AC does not have better or even same RCS than a F-22 has...I have said several times following here...if it had same splendid RCS form and material...its size would make it far more stealthy....do you agree ?
My drawings are made with Dassault Systemes Draft Sight ( and AutoCAD depending where I am )...not with pencil.
I appreciate Ed Heinemann's motto; Simplicate and add lightness... also A-4 still shines. Times have changed since Heinemann's days.
I have several totally secret aspects in this craft that actually make this happen ( that I haven't revealed at KP site or here ) and I doubt anyone can make a design that has this much punch and mach 2 capability even on paper in this size ( it would be interesting to see if someone could....perhaps Burt Rutan or Jim Bede ). I have worked continuosly 7 years to make this happen ( even to this stage )...making enermous amount of inventions...to save in size, weight and fuel...certainly I don't know everything. SpudmanWP clearly showed I need to change tactics concerning certain operations.
I knew this will cause some irritation..try to bear it. I try to show very little amount of pictures since they do seem to cause some heavy traffic.

 

[topspeed3]

I'd claim that a really small stealth fighter is totally invisible ( to any radar ) and thus more effective in intercepting.

Given that stealth design achieves several orders of magnitude reduction in radar signature, cutting the size in half will have very small effect in proportion.

But if the mission is to fly very low until in position to launch missiles, why bother with a supersonic aircraft? You could mount APG-67 and a pair of AMRAAMs on Cessna 206. It even has the 28 feet you wanted.

Because at low altitude very few aeroplanes actually operate much above mach 1.0 ..the air is just so thick...trying to keep the drag minimum might make possible to fly supercruise with extremely small engine. Cessna would be vulnerable to small arms fire too in COIN operations etc. This is heavily shielded with kevlar/carbon fuse and steel plated cockpit ( as a design ).
Maybe I have wrong data on the RCS affect of size then at least this would be very hard visually to be seen in combat situation.

 

[topspeed3]

LA-15 was 2725 kg empty and Gnat about 2175 kg, but Scaled Composite ARES only 1300 kg.
Small AN/APG-67 weighs 72 kilos. 2 AAMs like you said 200-240 kg. Soviet designed GSH-300 cannon about 47 kilos ( + ammo ).
I'd claim Mtow 5000 kg and 2200 kg empty. 28.6 ft long.

And none of the 3 aircraft were supersonic and they wouldn't be able to intercept even an airliner.

APG-67 is a good choice, but it is limited by its small size. 75km detection range against fighter-sized target is very poor and gives very limited BVR capability.
Gsh-30-1 is also fine. 150 rounds will weigh 130kg. Add ammunition feed and the magazine itself and we are back to 200kg.


I would go with 5500kg MTOW and 4450kg loaded weight (1000kg fuel, 100kg pilot, 350kg weapons) and 3000kg empty. And you have a tiny fighter armed with a pair of IR missiles and top speed about M1.5, going against larger, faster and better armed 3rd and 4th generation fighters. From purely cost point of view, buying old MiG-21s would be cheaper.

F-86 engine weighed 1280 kilos and PW535F is 317 kilos, but yet it has more than half the out put. I mentioned those this data on my mind...that they could be made lighter ( not ARES )..but they are man carrying jets with an e-seat. Folland Gnat flew supersonic in dive....top speed level was mach 0.98 at 6 km ! Gnat proto only weighed 1550 kilos.

Gnat ceiling is at 14 600 meters; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folland_Gnat ( top speed 1120 km/t )
614 l/hr consumption at cruise; http://www.aircraftinformation.info/art_gnat.htm

I am pretty sure this grows bigger if some instance ie nation took interest on this with own experts etc.

PS; see the size comparison between LA-15 and GM-1 in my blog; http://max3fan.blogspot.fi/

 

[topspeed3]

Given that stealth design achieves several orders of magnitude reduction in radar signature, cutting the size in half will have very small effect in proportion.

But if the mission is to fly very low until in position to launch missiles, why bother with a supersonic aircraft? You could mount APG-67 and a pair of AMRAAMs on Cessna 206. It even has the 28 feet you wanted.

Though today (or tomorrow), if you really had a requirement to make a small interceptor you might exclude the radar - and instead use offboard sensors and a datalink (assuming you can get the bandwidth).

A very good point....this has also very diminutive landing gear. No mid air refuelling opportunity ( since small nation defence ac ). Complicated systems also add weight. I am still wondering since this is 14% smaller than a Gnat if this was able to fly with fully mechanic controls ?

 

[topspeed3]

Engine burns less if it has smaller engine.

Thats true, but if you are talking interceptor its not about fuel efficiency -- its speed.

I also agree about leaving the gun off. if you are trying to keep this small light and simple a gun is space and additional machinery that could be occupied by something else more valuable.

If an interceptor is dog fighting, it failed in its original mission, just like how a sniper that is fighting hand to hand with a knife has failed in his concealment and long range precision rifle skills. Snipers are long range killers, not ninjas. Your warplane should be the same.

the more speciliazed the role, the more precise you can get with it, if it doesn't need bombs it can have small bays, if it isn't dogfighting it doesn't need a HOBS missile system, or guns etc.

Multi-role means more and more stuff added to do more and more, which is why we don't see a lot of multi role fighters in the light class. Medium at least heavy (F-15E) even better.

Are you aware that 5 tonne D-21 drone went mach 3.5 at 27 km altitude using only 6.68 kN force. This baby has 2 x 6 kN rocket and can fly to 24 km with turbofan and then a minute or two with them rockets...any idea what it means in speed and altitude when ship is almost 40% lighter than D-21 drone ? How fast do you think 300 m/s climbing interceptor should go ..isn't it enuf that the missiles reach mach 4.0 ?

This AC was originally designed to knock down Mig-31s that fly at 22 km at mach 2.8. I'd be optimistic that 10 of these could very well knock down at least one Mig-31...using for instance tactics where several GM-1s ( older name was Velociraptor ) attack from different direction...3 head on 3 from behind and two pairs from different angles from 35 km at mach 2 ! With the RCS size of a pin head ..there could be at least a change of underwear ahead with the overconfident Mig driver..or with any enemy pilot of other similar size device. Mig would have to face 20 AAMs ( even 44 ) and 1700 rounds of 27 mm fire right after them....and some of these planes could be carrying additionally 4 AMRAAMs in external hardpoints too makin the flare and chaff run out in rapid succession.

Why there aren't small lite multirole fighters you ask ? I have no clue..no one has ordered any ? Hawk 200 is used by some nations..but I bet that stays pretty modest in the performance..the Hawk engine alone weighs over 800 kilos..and is double sized to Gnat ( at least ).

This ac was also hybrid; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_XF-103

 

[kcran567]

Iran is interested in this project.

 

[topspeed3]

Iran is interested in this project.

Doesn't Iran already have F-313 ?
It seems to sport Clark-Y foil.
This has just 4% thick foil.

I tought iranians therefore could be interested from just a small ac like this;

Nice tricycle...and almost rear view...not quite.

 

[Kryptid]

kcran567 was being sarcastic.

What actual work have you done on this design other than drawings and some math? Have you calculated the center of lift and center of gravity? Have you measured its theoretical performance and radar cross section using a computer program? Built wind tunnel models and radar pole models? It's easy enough to claim that you've made a good design on paper, but actually testing it is another matter altogether. Very often, even professional designers will find problems with their designs that they did not initially predict once they actually get to testing them.

I find it interesting how you say that your design has a radar cross section 1/5th that of the F-22. How do you know this? You can't go by the scaling analogy which you used to justify it because 1) That's not how RCS works and 2) Your design is not just a miniaturized F-22. Seemingly minor design details can have a massive influence on RCS when you are designing a VLO aircraft. If even one component is designed slightly wrong, you can end up with a much larger RCS than you were originally aiming for. Everything has to be specially-designed, including the landing lights, vents, antennae, panel lines, control surfaces, etc.

Could you please just consider the possibility that the direction you are going in is not necessarily the best one for the mission you are designing for? So many of us have already put forth rational objections to your basic design principles and combat strategy. We are not trying to be rude, we are trying to be realistic.

 

[topspeed3]

kcran567 was being sarcastic.

What actual work have you done on this design other than drawings and some math? Have you calculated the center of lift and center of gravity? Have you measured its theoretical performance and radar cross section using a computer program? Built wind tunnel models and radar pole models? It's easy enough to claim that you've made a good design on paper, but actually testing it is another matter altogether. Very often, even professional designers will find problems with their designs that they did not initially predict once they actually get to testing them.

I find it interesting how you say that your design has a radar cross section 1/5th that of the F-22. How do you know this? You can't go by the scaling analogy which you used to justify it because 1) That's not how RCS works and 2) Your design is not just a miniaturized F-22. Seemingly minor design details can have a massive influence on RCS when you are designing a VLO aircraft. If even one component is designed slightly wrong, you can end up with a much larger RCS than you were originally aiming for. Everything has to be specially-designed, including the landing lights, vents, antennae, panel lines, control surfaces, etc.

Could you please just consider the possibility that the direction you are going in is not necessarily the best one for the mission you are designing for? So many of us have already put forth rational objections to your basic design principles and combat strategy. We are not trying to be rude, we are trying to be realistic.

Testing is undone. I use the data I have collected in some 45 years of model making and reading books...Daniel Raymar etc.

No I said the radar cross section is 1/5th of F-22..when the level of stealth arrangement othervise is in same level as in F-22..only because the plane is 1/5th of an F-22 ( in frontal area, side view, top view ( rudders are 1/20th ) ). I was clearly informed wrong about the RCS..unless the smaller rudders cause 80% less RCS signature.

This flies like a bird..or easy free flight model...than an overpowered brick with computer to manage it.

You are clearly unable to objectively evaluate the combat capabilities of this 10 million dollar mach 2 + & supercruise stealth fighter with almost A-10 niveau ptotected cockpit. ???

 

[Deino]

@ topspeed3 !

First of all HELLO, but second to admit even if I admire Your idea and Your enthusiasm, I find it more than annoying - and honestly really not conform with the quality level of this forum ??? - that You tear down nearly all arguments from members here with much more expertise than You.
Your endless, countless posting of wiki-links of nearly all small fighter, these repeated nice but to admit simply useless comparative plans of Your design to the J-22, the La-250 and other "larger" types at the Key-Forum or in comparison to the Me-163 :-\ and even more Your simple non-reply to argument is the problem.

As such I suggest to move this tread to the speculative part of this tread since it lacks all sense of reality like said - in a very polite way - by Kryptid:

...

Could you please just consider the possibility that the direction you are going in is not necessarily the best one for the mission you are designing for? So many of us have already put forth rational objections to your basic design principles and combat strategy.
We are not trying to be rude, we are trying to be realistic.

Deino

 

[Deino]

Please continue here !

 

[topspeed3]

Okay thanks Deino !
I possibly missed the existence of this whole section.
I am not entirely with UFO people with here since PARALAY and Bill Gunston are here too.
This has also a carrier for it !

 

[perttime]

Carrier... How do you land it?

 

[topspeed3]

Carrier... How do you land it?

What do you mean how do you land it..arrester hook on a high speed catamaran.

It could send planes at 1 each 4 minutes rate with a catapult...but problem is that on a very high speed the crew cannot be on the deck....the wind blows ( 55 kts ) at 100 km/h. There has to be special measures to cope with that and it does limit the effective usage a bit. Possibly at first launch as many as 6 acs can take off from the deck..but then the speed has to be taken down again to load the deck again. Catapult works even when ship is stationary at dock..plane uses own rocket power to take off..and catapult power to leave the ship.

 

[topspeed3]

@ topspeed3 !

First of all HELLO, but second to admit even if I admire Your idea and Your enthusiasm, I find it more than annoying - and honestly really not conform with the quality level of this forum ??? - that You tear down nearly all arguments from members here with much more expertise than You.
Your endless, countless posting of wiki-links of nearly all small fighter, these repeated nice but to admit simply useless comparative plans of Your design to the J-22, the La-250 and other "larger" types at the Key-Forum or in comparison to the Me-163 :-\ and even more Your simple non-reply to argument is the problem.

As such I suggest to move this tread to the speculative part of this tread since it lacks all sense of reality like said - in a very polite way - by Kryptid:

...

Could you please just consider the possibility that the direction you are going in is not necessarily the best one for the mission you are designing for? So many of us have already put forth rational objections to your basic design principles and combat strategy.
We are not trying to be rude, we are trying to be realistic.

Deino

As an answer to kryptic...I think this is very realistic...I have done serious research on this.

 

[topspeed3]

Here is the Me-163 comparison and LA-250.

 

[Deino]

Again ... instead of giving an answer, You simply make jokes !

Tell us, where You would land Your fighter ?? give us a calculation of landing speed, landing run - I even doubt it could take off - ... and again

As an answer to kryptic...I think this is very realistic...I have done serious research on this.

That's not the way to discuss here - maybe at the Key-Forum - but here Your either have to tell us WHY or just leave it.
The answer "I think this is very realistic" is no answer, it only shows You either have no clues - or maybe we here and You are the only one so genius - but then tell us or You don't have indeed no clues and then try to learn from those with more know-how and argue ...

Deino

 

[topspeed3]

Again ... instead of giving an answer, You simply make jokes !

Tell us, where You would land Your fighter ?? give us a calculation of landing speed, landing run - I even doubt it could take off - ... and again

As an answer to kryptic...I think this is very realistic...I have done serious research on this.

That's not the way to discuss here - maybe at the Key-Forum - but here Your either have to tell us WHY or just leave it.
The answer "I think this is very realistic" is no answer, it only shows You either have no clues - or maybe we here and You are the only one so genius - but then tell us or You don't have indeed no clues and then try to learn from those with more know-how and argue ...

Deino

You land it like I described above....on a high speed catamaran with arrester hook.

He said my design is not realistic..and gave no specific reason.

Engine would need about 29 kN to be even with Gripen and Mig-21 ( using the scale factor ).

Here is how to use it.

 

[perttime]

Carrier... How do you land it?

What do you mean how do you land it..arrester hook on a high speed catamaran.

The deck is small. When the carrier is moving fast, the deck is still small.
The carrier being small makes it bounce more on the water. That can probably work OK on small waters where waves don't get too high. Big lakes.... For landings, the carrier has to go in a straight line. You need small waters where you still have some room to keep going in a straight line at high speed.

 

[topspeed3]

Carrier... How do you land it?

What do you mean how do you land it..arrester hook on a high speed catamaran.

The deck is small. When the carrier is moving fast, the deck is still small.
The carrier being small makes it bounce more on the water. That can probably work OK on small waters where waves don't get too high. Big lakes.... For landings, the carrier has to go in a straight line. You need small waters where you still have some room to keep going in a straight line at high speed.

No we have thoroughly researched this as well. This can send and receive planes at SEA STATE 4.
Catamaran glides on waves....in this size ( look for SEA FIGHTER ). It is the most stable platform anyone can think of.
The plane is small too and STOL most of all.

 

[Deino]

You land it like I described above....on a high speed catamaran with arrester hook.

He said my design is not realistic..and gave no specific reason.

Engine would need about 29 kN to even with gripen and Mig-21 ( using the scale factor ).

Here is how to use it.

Sorry again ! ... You still don't get it !??

You simply put one funny artwork after another, You simply ignore all arguments or requests ... not we have to show You why this thing is unrealistic, You need to tell us why it should be !

.. and even more what sencse should it be again and again to show a comparison to the F-86, the Gnat or the La-15 ??? ... just look, You put two huge AAMs into that tiny thing, You even more tell us to put pylons + even more of the monster AAMs on it and still pretend to tell it is stealthy, it can this and that and all agruments are simply put aside since You "think this is very realistic" !!!

Deino

 

[topspeed3]

You land it like I described above....on a high speed catamaran with arrester hook.

He said my design is not realistic..and gave no specific reason.

Engine would need about 29 kN to even with gripen and Mig-21 ( using the scale factor ).

Here is how to use it.

Sorry again ! ... You still don't get it !??

You simply put one funny artwork after another, You simply ignore all arguments or requests ... not we have to show You why this thing is unrealistic, You need to tell us why it should be !

.. and even more what sencse should it be again and again to show a comparison to the F-86, the Gnat or the La-15 ??? ... just look, You put two huge AAMs into that tiny thing, You even more tell us to put pylons + even more of the monster AAMs on it and still pretend to tell it is stealthy, it can this and that and all agruments are simply put aside since You "think this is very realistic" !!!

Deino

You clearly don't read what I write or just ignore it.

4 x AMRAAMs are for different kinda mission ! It could also carry 8 x GBU-39s in external hard points.

For interception it has 2 x smaller AAMs concealed and a 27 mm cannon with 150+ rounds.

This is not funny art work..it is conceptual design.

 

[perttime]

No we have thoroughly researched this as well. This can send and receive planes at SEA STATE 4.
Catamaran glides on waves....in this size ( look for SEA FIGHTER ). It is the most stable platform anyone can think of.
The plane is small too and STOL most of all.

At this moment, northern Atlantic has wave heights between 2 and 8 meters (http://www.oceanweather.com/data/). Don't know about wave lengths.
I have problems visualizing a small catamaran gliding over those waves smoothly.

 

[topspeed3]

No we have thoroughly researched this as well. This can send and receive planes at SEA STATE 4.
Catamaran glides on waves....in this size ( look for SEA FIGHTER ). It is the most stable platform anyone can think of.
The plane is small too and STOL most of all.

At this moment, northern Atlantic has wave heights between 2 and 8 meters (http://www.oceanweather.com/data/). Don't know about wave lengths.
I have problems visualizing a small catamaran gliding over those waves smoothly.

It can opetate in Baltic Sea beautifully...I bet even Nimitz class carriers won't operate at 30 meter waves..but some people do SURF on them with 3 metre board !

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Conceptual design of an aircraft starts with an understanding of basic aerodynamics and structures. Your design doesn't demonstrate to me you understand either, and this is coming from a guy (me) who dropped out of an Aeronautical Engineering degree after the first year. If you remove that knowledge then you are just drawing pretty pictures.


There are plenty of people posting their creations online on e.g. DeviantArt.com, that doesn't make them aircraft designers.


Here's a great example. You say you've read Raymer. Seen this chart?


It shows the typical ratio of empty weight to takeoff weight. Note how for every type of aircraft, the slope goes down as takeoff weight increases. All things being equal, larger designs carry proportionately more usable load and their empty weight is a smaller fraction of the maximum weight. Where does your design sit on the Jet Fighter curve? No doubt it is magically far away from the line where real-world designs tend to fit.

 

[perttime]

It can opetate in Baltic Sea beautifully...I bet even Nimitz class carriers won't operate at 30 meter waves..but some people do SURF on them with 3 metre board !

The Baltic sea I can believe OK.
On a 30 meter wave, a 3 meter board either goes up and down a lot, or goes at the same speed and heading as the wave.

... I'm not trying to shoot you down. I'm just looking for the operational envelope of your carrier. It does have limits but might be quite good in certain environments.

 

[topspeed3]

Here's a great example. You say you've read Raymer. Seen this chart?


It shows the typical ratio of empty weight to takeoff weight. Note how for every type of aircraft, the slope goes down as takeoff weight increases. All things being equal, larger designs carry proportionately more usable load and their empty weight is a smaller fraction of the maximum weight. Where does your design sit on the Jet Fighter curve? No doubt it is magically far away from the line where real-world designs tend to fit.

Are you aware that this number in Rutan Voyager was 4.0 ?
To be able to do what I am doing you have to first build 100 models..invent new kinda millions selling kites..lead kids in daytime with R/C models and discuss these things about 15 years with experts...and design new concepts every day about 4-5 hours until 2 am in the morning.
I have mentioned several of these inventions and using PW545/PW535 is just one of them...having an enermous RE area/number in smallish plane ( much bigger than in Gripen ) is another etc. There are about 10 new aspects on this that makes all this happen ( slats and flaperons are not it ). One of the aspects has only been used in one experimental flass fibre plane before ( by an aerodynamics guru not Burt ).
If I wanted to do an average jet fighter..it would not save Finland from enemy would it ? It has to be 10 times better.

 

[CJGibson]

It's not a semi-submersible by any chance? (hint, hint, get out of jail card, then retreat gracefully)

Chris

 

[Basil]

ATG tried to propose a very light homeland interceptor variant of its Javelin two-seat jet in 2002; of course without stealth features but with a minigun pod and small air-air missiles at the wingtips.

 

[topspeed3]

It's not a semi-submersible by any chance? (hint, hint, get out of jail card, then retreat gracefully)

Chris

No it is not semisubmersible...it is 160 kg/m2 ( max 300 kg/m2 ) wingloading jet fighter with reusable boosters.

I said before this is irritating as it is almost as light as Spitfire Mk.1 ( 95 kg/m2 ). Spit engine weighed 600 kg and PW535 just 317 kg. Engine burns around 675 kg/hr...rockets are around 100 kg each ( with 6 kN thrust...and add no frontal area ).
47 kg or 80 kg cannon...ther you can start counting. Remember the wing holds many aspects usually housed in fuselage. To see things new way is a key aspect in this.

Certainly this cannot level towns in one flyby..it carries just 1/4th of the concealed weapons the F-22 or PAK-FA or J-20 does.
This has some elements of what Folland Gnat was at its day...really revolutional.

Maybe this could be named quarter scale 6th gen fighter.

Not unlike the 70ies small fighter designs by Boeing, Lockheed or Northrop.

 

[topspeed3]

Here is plane that truly is the smallest ever...end even this could carry either a small cannon underside behind the pilot or a single concealed MBDA air to ground missile.

This sports 2 x PBS JT-100 that moves a Blanik 2-seater metal glider with just one engine.

Apparently I did not intend to bring this here, but it sorta gives scale to what is really the smallest fighter jet possible ( 2.2 kN ).

It is about 164 times smaller in out put than biggest stealth jets.

;D