Profile image

F-300-A3 StarHawk

9,857 SkyJayTheFirst  2.9 years ago
Auto Credit Based on SkyJayTheFirst's Supermaneuverable Stealth Fighter Cockpit

Took some expert advice, combined it with my own simpleplanes aviation engineering knowledge, and made a new variant of the StarHawk! With Roll Rate, Pitch Rate and Yaw Rate all installed, having coordinated the center of mass further back, and changing the turn angle of the elevators, this baby can now easily perform supermaneuverable stunts while flying faster than the speed of sound, despite its strong-lifting wings!

Credit to:
@Doomnolymo for the Radar!
@PlanariaLab for the Hud!
@GuyFolk for the advice on the last build!

Spotlights

General Characteristics

  • Predecessor Supermaneuverable Stealth Fighter Cockpit
  • Created On Android
  • Wingspan 50.8ft (15.5m)
  • Length 59.9ft (18.2m)
  • Height 16.8ft (5.1m)
  • Empty Weight 27,166lbs (12,322kg)
  • Loaded Weight 38,476lbs (17,452kg)

Performance

  • Power/Weight Ratio 7.008
  • Wing Loading 31.9lbs/ft2 (155.7kg/m2)
  • Wing Area 1,206.9ft2 (112.1m2)
  • Drag Points 4415

Parts

  • Number of Parts 626
  • Control Surfaces 8
  • Performance Cost 2,871
  • Log in to leave a comment
  • Profile image

    @GuyFolk @IceCraftGaming @donkski @LaylaSP1 I've finished the F-300-A4 StarHawk! Please be sure to check it out at your earliest convenience!

    Pinned 2.9 years ago
  • Profile image
    106k GuyFolk

    @SkyJayTheFirst
    That's the way aerodynamic work anyway, you can't PSM at high speed, not with wing loading this low anyway.
    The flat bottom should still be there because it's unmatched (and probably no substitute) high aoa characteristic and you should workaround it instead.
    If you use semi-symmetric, you can PSM at high speed but tumble horribly, I'd rather not PSM at all.
    I know there are overwhelmingly many things to play around so I suggest you to pick the design choice base on it's unique capability that no other part can cover rather than how easy it is to make.

    +1 2.9 years ago
  • Profile image

    @GuyFolk alright, I'll fine tune the pitch rate to be a bit higher, then. Also, I did try using flat bottom wings. Problem is, when I did, it no longer wanted to do PSM unless its speed went below 500 mph. So, at least with the middle and outer wings, I had to stick with semi-symmetric so that it could still PSM at above Mach 1.

    2.9 years ago
  • Profile image
    106k GuyFolk

    @SkyJayTheFirst
    For pitch rate, you can test it by pull up and if the plane resist that's mean you are on the right direction but may be too much of *0.00x (pitch rate multiplier).
    Most of the time if pitch rate is implemented correctly, the plane will stop pitching on it's own at some speed but if it's inverted it'll be amplifying the pitch all the time and once it pulled up it'll never stop.

    For roll, have you use flat-bottom wings as I said before?
    If not there will be problem with roll at high aoa and that'll hurt it's PSM capability.

    Also, vertical stabilizers can induce roll at high angle of slip.

    +1 2.9 years ago
  • Profile image

    @GuyFolk when you can tell me, is there any advice you have for me about the roll rate? Whenever I do a PSM with the aircraft, sometimes it likes to roll upside down or sideways, and I can't figure out why. The actual aileron is doing it.

    2.9 years ago
  • Profile image

    @IceCraftGaming trying to fix that as best as I can. I'll see what I can do with the next version. Thanks!

    +1 2.9 years ago
  • Profile image
    36.0k Icey21

    It tends to pitch up

    +1 2.9 years ago
  • Profile image

    @GuyFolk just tested what you said, and you were right. Now the yaw rate is working properly on 0.01. However, I'm not sure what to do with the pitch rate, as I don't know how to tell if it's inverted, or not.

    Roll rate seems fine, but it sometimes likes to turn the aircraft sideways after doing a PSM for some reason, and I tried messing with the number on that, and changing the plus sign to a minus. Why would that be happening?

    2.9 years ago
  • Profile image
    106k GuyFolk

    @SkyJayTheFirst
    I think your performance range is too wide so you need to work extra lol.
    But that's possible, with time.
    For yaw, that surprised me for a sec but through the process of elimination, it is just common mistake.
    The plane shaking sideway at first look like the yaw rate is too sensitive for an inexperience eye but it is actually not, yaw rate normally is not above 30 and the multiplier behind yaw rate is just 0.002 so yaw rate is definitely not too sensitive so it is not sensitivity problem.
    So (YawRate0.002) is out of the question, only thing left is "+" in Yaw + YawRate0.002.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Conclusion, yaw rate is inverted.

    +2 2.9 years ago
  • Profile image

    @GuyFolk you might be surprised to hear this, but if I had the yaw rate literally any higher, it would shake the plane sideways and out of control. Roll rate seemed to have plenty of control on my end, too. Pitch rate, I'll probably fine tune in the next variant, though. Thanks again for your input!

    2.9 years ago
  • Profile image
    106k GuyFolk

    Fly much better.
    I suggest you change wing airfoil to flat-bottom because it have the best high aoa and stall characteristic. (it eliminate roll inversion at high aoa which should not be present in modern jet)
    And I have a good and/or bad news, the plane fly smooth not because FT code you use but the plane was nicely tuned before.
    Because you multiply the rate by 0.00x so the actual value use to calculate in code will be so tiny it basically not affect the input.

    +1 2.9 years ago
  • Profile image

    @donkski thanks! I had no idea I could even do that.

    +1 2.9 years ago
  • Profile image

    @LaylaSP1 wait, was that genuine, or was that supposed to be condescending and sarcastic?

    2.9 years ago
  • Profile image

    @LaylaSP1 even while exceeding mach 1!

    2.9 years ago
  • Profile image
    4,666 Melvycon

    It can perform a PSM, good job!

    +1 2.9 years ago