The plane can glide, not fly. All planes have what is called a "glide ratio." This is a simple calculation:

Glide ratio = velocity forward / velocity downward

This is also equal to lift / drag

The higher the plane's glide ratio, the more it looks like gliding and less like falling.

Not to put a damper on you home-built project, however for a wooden aircraft to fly at the speed you are asking about really needs to have an engine engineer involved. There is a lot that goes into selecting the correct engine for power to weight and amount of lift the wings can support.

I assume you are purchasing project drawings from an approved source with much experience in the field of building and designing aircraft. As a former FAA aircraft inspector that used to certify many home-built aircraft beside the engine, you certainly have to take in consideration the propellrr that will match the engine to prevent induced vibration. Engines and propellers are designed and tested many hours to determine they are compatible. Of course, on home-built aircraft this is not required, but in the U.S. without engine and propellers that are compatible your phase one testing will certainly be a lot longer to prove it will not shake your aircraft a part.

Something to keep in mind even if you build an aircraft it does not mean the FAA will sign off and approve it for flight. I would recommend you take you aircraft drawing to the FAA or a designated airworthiness representative (DAR) and have them take a look and see is what you are proposing to built will even meet the certification requirements.

I have turned down several aircraft that were not safe to fly, but you should start with detailed drawings to show the structural integrity, wing location, lifting (wing loading) and etc. Remember you have to prove your own design is safe and if you design this aircraft yourself without the proper math to show compliance it may never get off the ground sorry to say.

You realize that, in the case of small planes, that means motorizing all the controls ?
Some plane do not have auto-pilot, so completely lack the actuators required to actually move the control surface without someone being there to apply force to the commands. Only this would add considerable weight, complexity and cost to the airplane.
Moreover, in the case where an incapacitated pilot would slump on the controls, the remote control would have to wage a battle against the inert pilot.
Add to this the fact that whoever would be controlling the plane remotely would have to have some means of seeing though the window, which means wide field of view cameras with broadcast capability to great distance, since the plane may be far from whoever wants to control it. And keeping remote control pilots on standby.
And that is for that one in a million instance that may never happen again.

So, basically your idea is dismissed as being impractical, costly, useless and futile.

Average salary of commercial pilots in USA (2014) is $54,000 -

Here is the detail -

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=...

http://www.askcaptainlim.com/salary-prop...

It will just depend, on height, and there is some other restrictions look here :) ------> http://www.airforce.gov.au/Our-People/Be... And good luck sir :)

In addition to the aircraft carried on board, the ships carry defensive equipment for use against missiles and hostile aircraft. These consist of either three or four NATO RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missile launchers designed for defense against aircraft and anti-ship missiles as well as either three or four 20 mm Phalanx CIWS missile defense cannon. USS Ronald Reagan has none of these, having been built with the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile system, two of which have also been installed on USS Nimitz and USS George Washington. These will be installed on the other ships as they return for Refueling Complex Overhaul (RCOH).[3][15] Since USS Theodore Roosevelt, the carriers have been constructed with 2.5 in (64 mm) Kevlar armor over vital spaces, and earlier ships have been retrofitted with it: Nimitz in 1983–1984, Eisenhower from 1985–1987 and Vinson in 1989.[2][22]

The other countermeasures the ships use are four Sippican SRBOC (super rapid bloom off-board chaff) six-barrel MK36 decoy launchers, which deploy infrared flares and chaff to disrupt the sensors of incoming missiles; an SSTDS torpedo defense system; and an AN/SLQ-25 Nixie torpedo countermeasures system. The carriers also use AN/SLQ-32(V) electronic warfare systems to detect and disrupt hostile radar signals in addition to the electronic warfare capabilities of some of the aircraft on board.[23][24]

The presence of nuclear weapons on board U.S. aircraft carriers since the end of the Cold War has neither been confirmed nor denied by the U.S. government. As a result of this, as well as concerns over the safety of nuclear power, the presence of a U.S. aircraft carrier in a foreign port has occasionally provoked protest from local people, for example when USS Nimitz docked in Chennai, India, in 2007. At that time, the Strike Group commander Rear Admiral John Terence Blake stated that: "The U.S. policy is that we do not routinely deploy nuclear weapons on board Nimitz."[25