I'm not sure if every one has figured this out yet, but, there has to be some who don't. I'm going to give a quick guide to making your airplanes maneuverable.
Good Wing loading. Anywhere below 25lbs/sq-ft is good for turning power. You may be asking,"But Bacon, how do I do that?" You put wing on wing. That makes more lift, and more turning power.
Control surfaces. Alot of the things I've noticed is that newer players think bigger control surfaces= more turning power. This is very wrong and it can be solved by making it smaller. I mean, big control surfaces in Kerbal Space Program make more turning power, as in I pull up and I'm at like 15m/s and I'm pointed retrograde (i.e. looking the opposite way of where you're going). What does this mean?
Smaller control surfaces - faster planes
Bigger control surfaces - slower planesBalance - "You should also bring the center of mass as close to your COL as possible, without the plane becoming unstable. You can bring it back further with smaller control surfaces." -PINK
That is all, if you have any questions just comment below.
@SolarisAir change the wing type from 3 to 2 in the overload mod.
Adding on a small thing. If you want to adjust the angle your control surfaces rotate to, try putting a structural wing on a rotator set to 10-25 degrees of motion (any more than that and you will essentially create an airbrake, though some of my planes have excess of 40). This allows you to tweak the control surface limits without xml editing, and it also allows for entire wings to act as control surfaces if you want.
@Helios2pro could mean literally place a wing down and then put another on the end
Also playing withthe angle of attack of your tail and main wing can do the trick....
Can someone help? I dont get what Bacon means by "wing on wing"
Another tip : If your plane wobbles when turning, try making the control surfaces smaller, but not too small. Basically you have to find the correct size for the control surfaces. Too big : Wobbly. Too small : No agility.
I dwould add some more things to the list like wing placement, levcons, canards and some kind of thrust vectoring system, lowest drag possible and lightweight but still heavy enough with all weight focused in between the front and rear wheels.
When I make my planes, there is often trouble, in that it either won't pull up during testing, or the wings will flap heavily, or it will self-destruct!
@Clawsome Any of what you said works.
You said to put wing on wing. How do you do that? Could you do it with rotating? Or is the ability to nudge necessary? Or am I completely misinterpreting that phrase?
@MasterManufacturingCo I was talking more of CoM vs CoL distance. On a standard plane, elevators tend to need a lot of distance to get the leverage they need. However, on a canard plane, the distance is already substantial from the CoM, assuming it has heavy rearward engines making a rearward CoM. This means that canards are already extremely far, being at the front, making them far more sensitive to the point that it can straight up tumble the plane even if its stable in straight flight. In order to balance this and the usual nose up tendency of canard planes, its best to add some weight to the nose. In the end, what i'm saying is, on most canard planes I end up needing to soften the effect because its TOO much, so the CoM and CoL are more distant than usual despite equal handling.
The amount of weight that each square meter of wing has to hold up. @MasterMindIndustriesAndAviationCorporation
@KCferrari @PINK @BaconEggs what is wing loading.
These points are fair for beginners, but having done a lot of work in balance and supermaneuverability, these are not always the case. Many of my planes have rather high wing loading (70+ lbs/sqft) and can turn impressively fast. In fact, the F-22 has a wing loading of 77lbs/sqft. If a plane needs a loading of 25 to fly, it is poorly designed. The surface type of the wing also makes a huge difference which most ignore. Your point on control surfaces I also entirely disagree with. They are a matter of leverage. A large elevator surface on a fast plane that moves 10 degrees is overall far better than a small surface, so long as it can be unlocked at lower speeds, allowing more movement for low speed maneuverability. Balance is also another strange point. On canard based planes, having the CoM at a normal distance will still be a disaster. It is therefore better to have flat bottom high lift canards and a heavier nose, which overall puts the CoM further forward and also helps keep the plane from having nose up or down tendencies at speed.
MiG-8 @drdoom222
J-20 and MiG-1.42 @drdoom222
@drdoom222 the wing that's in the front all those European fighters, if that makes any English.
@Tully2001 what's a canard
ho do you make wings look good
Wow this really helps! I'm trying to make some planes maneuverable without thrust vectoring. Thank you!
You should also bring the center of mass as close to your COM as possible, without the plane becoming unstable. You can bring it back further with smaller control surfaces.
Thanks for sharing this, now when I want to build a fighter I'll follow these instructions ;)
This is actually pretty helpful