F25 bombers is the only strategic bomber I've ever built. It's very fast and carries more than 100 500 pound bombs.
AG1:Open the bomb bay.
AG8:lighting
The development cycle of this aircraft is very long. It started about three months ago. Frontier class missile cruiser, which started later than him, has been released for a long time.
The development process of this aircraft is quite tortuous. Originally, this aircraft was supposed to be a high-altitude high-speed fighter, but when I actually built the airframe, I found that its shape was more like a bomber. So I scaled up the whole body and readjusted its aerodynamic design and lift layout. But if you want to make the plane bigger, it's far more than just enlarging it as a whole. This plane exposed a lot of flight defects, and then I redesigned and adjusted the shape of its wings, and finally it became a strategic bomber.
The aircraft's magazine has been improved four times before it became what it is now. In the first plan, four magazines were dug on the fuselage of the aircraft, which will carry 400 500 pound bombs and two fighters. But in the actual construction, I found that this scheme is almost impossible for me to achieve. I have enough technology and ability to build such a bomber, but it is impossible for my equipment to run it, and it is impossible for me to complete its adjustment and trial. So the first option was abandoned after the bomb was deployed. Then the second option carried 250 500 pound bombs and dozens of cruise missiles. It's better than the first one, but it's still crazy, and my device still doesn't work. The third scheme added a vertical take-off and landing engine to the belly of the aircraft, but I found that the layout of the air intake would be a difficult problem to solve, and the structural complexity was too high, so this scheme was abandoned. What we are seeing now is the fourth scheme, which can be said to have wronged this huge aircraft. It could have carried more bombs than this, but this scheme has the highest fault tolerance rate and less difficulties in the construction process.
It's one of the worst maneuverable planes I've ever built. The take-off and landing of this plane are quite difficult. If you are not careful, you will deviate from the runway, hit a mountain or rush into the sea.
The landing gear of this plane was designed very rudimentary, but it also consumed a lot of my time and energy. Because this is the first time I've built an aircraft so heavy. In the past, in order to get good flight performance, I would compress the weight of the aircraft as much as possible. So I don't have any experience building this kind of landing gear at all. Thank goodness I succeeded in the end. The landing gear of this plane can bear the weight of this plane and the impact force when landing. Before that, the landing gear of the plane had been broken many times.
When you take off and land the plane, be sure to slow down and touch or leave the ground as gently as possible. Because the landing gear of the plane is very low, the plane is almost close to the ground when it stops on the ground. In order to prevent the explosion of bombs in the magazine caused by accidental impact during landing, I even concave the whole magazine into the body
That's all I've said about this strategic bomber. If you have any questions about this aircraft, you can ask me in the comments section. If you think I'm doing well, I hope you can suppo
Specifications
Spotlights
- Trainzo 3.4 years ago
- AWESOMENESS360 3.4 years ago
General Characteristics
- Created On Android
- Wingspan 264.1ft (80.5m)
- Length 520.8ft (158.8m)
- Height 48.5ft (14.8m)
- Empty Weight N/A
- Loaded Weight 412,597lbs (187,151kg)
Performance
- Power/Weight Ratio 1.503
- Wing Loading 26.5lbs/ft2 (129.6kg/m2)
- Wing Area 15,540.4ft2 (1,443.8m2)
- Drag Points 0
Parts
- Number of Parts 661
- Control Surfaces 6
- Performance Cost 4,264
@Formula350 nice bro
Hope ya build more wonderful works！
@KGcheater Thanks for the advice. I've indeed encountered the speed-wobble. I believe, in that instance, I was able to resolve it by actually making Attachment Points between each wing's tips. I guess you'd call it a "virtual attachment" since the two parts were not physically touching.
@PaperPlaneHasDream Thanks a bunch for the tip about Wings-2! Not only do they indeed seem to be much more rigid, as you said, but even better is they allow for much more refined control surface sizes :)
This will make my life significantly easier!
(Now all we need is for Jundroo to address the auto-roll [sometimes yaw as well] that will all-of-a-sudden manifest in a build. Wasn't present in the latest thing I'm working on, and then suddenly is. Super-awesome-fun-times!)
@surajshy Yes, Sled's work is very impressive for sure!
Alas, they are better suited for minimal/no-atmosphere and zero-gravity environments... lol Great for making something that shouldn't fly, be able to fly, but that itself sort of detracts from certain builds. In a planet's atmosphere, you're defying physics. I'm sure his systems can be toned down to feel realistic though, but I anticipate that's more work than I have experience in tinkering with currently.
I'll certainly utilize such a propulsion system some day, but I've not yet exhausted my enjoyment of vehicles that abide by physics! lol
@KGcheater @Formula350 well i would suggest doing what sled does he makes only a small piese of working engine component and rest to his aerodynamic buid are just fuselage with inf health, 0 mass and 0 drag. that way we can make what we want and it will work as it should be
Kg i have a suggestin for bomb bay add canons whit the highest caliber and 0 initial velocity
that way bombs wont collide and builds will be less laggy
@Formula350 If the wings of your plane bend a lot during flight.Then perhaps you should consider whether the wing load of your aircraft is too high.The wing in the game can provide quite strong lift, at the cost of insufficient structural strength.
The simplest example is that when an aircraft flies faster than its design speed, its wings will shake.
In the middle of the game, the wing connection point is very soft, and if you connect a wing on this soft connection point, then he will be more soft.So when I build aircraft that need to fly very fast or have a very high take-off weight, I try to integrate the wings as much as possible.
At present, the latest unannounced bomber I have built has also encountered structural strength problems in the construction process.And more serious than what you've encountered.The canard of the plane will be torn off directly when the plane dives.The reason is that the lift of the canard is too large, and the weight of the aircraft is too large.
@surajsahu Thank you for your advice.
@Formula350 here
add control surfaces on the Structural Wing is same as turn a primary wings'
parttype=Wing-2.If you want keep realistic that's ok but
'Wing-3' is bad when you try to make a fast plane.It will flex fiercely until the wing detach the fuselage.
9:05 a.m.in China Good Night(For you XD)
@PaperPlaneHasDream I was mixing up the wing types then, my bad.
I was thinking you were referring to the Structural Wing, and to convert it into that after having adding control surfaces.
All the Wings (be it rudder, primary wing, or tail fins) suffer from the flex, though. It's just harder to notice on tails due to their smaller size and the fact that we don't usually have tails made from multiple wing parts, nor are they usually large enough.
.
A good one to witness the flex, no matter what wing is used, would be on this ""Airbus"".
The primary wings obviously exhibit flex here which is actually welcomed being that's realistic. Though the livery on the rudder shows how much sway it also has, and you can just see the flexing in the tail fins.
In that example, it's honestly not a bad thing. It's on smaller builds, with multi-part wings where most do not have control surfaces, but then the ones that DO are pretty much acting as though they have little-to-no attachments elsewhere. They don't just flex at the wing tips, but 'twist' at the root. It'd be fine is Wings were like Fuselage parts and had connection points at the sides, of like the Wedge (sloped) block or Cockpits, which have 2 connection points on a single surface.
.
The wings only have
Root,Body, andTipattachment points, and that doesn't really lend itself to rigidity :(Granted, this is Simple Planes, and that is indeed the most basic number to accomplish what they're after... lol They definitely need to add an "Advanced" mode, since lots of us eventually outgrow that basic system in the game and need a stepping-stone before XML editing. (even Overdrive lacks the full accessibility, as it doesn't provide changing the connection points or what make up a "body")
[/rant]lolEDIT: It's 13:00 here in East Coast US for me. Good night! Sleep well.
@Formula350 bro it's 0 o'clock in China and I should go to bed :(
good night
@Formula350 wingPhysics=false makes your wings like a decoration and your plane will have no wings (from physical)
@Formula350 nah.
Turn the partType to Wing-2
@PaperPlaneHasDream Like, after setting up control surfaces, to convert it to a non-physics wing?
(If that's the case, I could just set
wingPhysics=falsesince AFAIK that's the only difference, but, I could certainly try both and see if it matters to SP.)Thanks.
@Formula350 Wing-3→Wing-2？
@surajsahu I've tried that T_T lol
And actually, on my QueSST plane, after having attachments out the wazoo, I went and did Auto Attachments on all the wing segments, and the flex was considerably less than it was with lots of attachments.
I found that highly annoying, given the amount of time I spent adding all those attachments in the first place! lol
Reality: If you approach problems logically, more often than not your solution will work out as you intended.
Simple Planes: Ppfpfhahahahahah. Logic. I only deal in Fuzzy Logic!
Simple Planes: You give me a zero, I give you 0.001284.
Simple Planes: You want more attachment points on your wings to stiffen it up? I'll give you noodle-wings!
:P
@KGcheater bro if you are building somthing this big i would suggest adding a high mannuvility mode across all big builds i have come across they have very rough handelinh yours was the smoothest so far but i would say a bit too smooth this much smoothness ig necessary if you want the plane to go over say 4000-5000 mph @sleddriver has good experience in making large builds ask him for help if you need
@Formula350 bro try adding more attach points to wing from main body by default there is only one attachment adding more will restrict its degree of freedom
this craft has more than 3 attachments for each of its part so its more stable
@KGcheater , Thank you very much .
@KGcheater How do you overcome wing flex? That's been my bane, my reoccurring nemesis. Though I have noticed that if a wing doesn't have any control surface(s), that it in turn doesn't flex when maneuvering.
So is that the solution... to only use hinge-powered control surfaces, thereby letting them 'absorb' all the torque/force that otherwise would've been applied directly to the wing; thus, prevents flexing?
@Trainzo Thank you!Your work looks very excellent too.
@Formula350 The huge size makes the plane inflexible.So I intend to design the next generation of bombers with maneuverability in mind.
But I don't deny that I like big things very much.
Next time I'm going to make the bomber bigger.
@surajsahu Thanks.
That's a BIG bird!
I suppose, there IS still plenty of strategy involved in carpet bombing lol
bro nice build
Very great plane . I love your build .