@asteroidbook345 of course.

May I use this for screenshots with my MiG-19?

beauty !! amazing work

Very cool!

@LeonardoEngineering hey, no worries! I’m hit or miss on the site as well.

@ChiChiWerx I simply love this F-105, it has some stunning details, and it's almost perfectly accurate in every aspect!
I'm sorry to myself for not have seen this build for more than half a year...

@X4JB my point exactly, I avoided thrashing you, I avoid thrashing anyone, it’s simply not polite.

@XJ4B Now that I actually have a few quiet minutes to compose some thoughts, I’ll attempt to explain this again. I apologize as I have not yet been successful in communicating clearly in a way you understand my intent. First, I have a lot of life experience and significantly more years on this earth, so my feedback is that using the term “you’re overrated” and then, even if it’s the next words, “I like your builds” is condescending. Especially coming from someone whose expertise is still coming along. I myself wouldn’t even use that phrase because it would deflate any ego out there, deserving or not. It’s called tact...there are other polite ways of providing feedback, especially in a public forum. And in this case, it’s not deserved. He’s not overrated, he’s been at this awhile, he produces quality builds that combine functionality, realism and fun. Lastly, I took these comments, as you perhaps should have, to another post because they were meant for you to consider privately, my intent is not to thrash anyone in public. It’s called “tact” and it’s an art many don’t know. If, after this, you still disagree, that’s fine, but please take it for what it’s worth.

@X4JB too much trouble to post something unlisted for this convo...just wanted a quick opp to provide a little feedback, then conversation goes away. And I read your original comment. But, anyway, you miss my point, simply saying “you’re overrated” is fairly insulting in itself, no matter the other comments surrounding...kind of like a s* sandwich. As for my HO, he’s not overrated, he has dozens and dozens of fine builds and improves with each new one. Some take the route of hundreds of crappy builds...he Isn’t one of them. We all have to make compromises with the build system here and I must fundamentally disagree with your assessment, his compromises strike a good balance between realism, functionality and fun.

@X4JB, concerning Boggy’s IAR 80, your comments are way off base and, for the sake of avoiding a big tit for tat exchange and public argument between the two of you, let me offer some friendly advice: You may have a couple of valid criticisms, but we all have to make a few compromises because the SP build template has its limitations we all need to deal with. But to say, “I don’t mean any disrespect, but you’re the most overrated builder on the site”...that’s not constructive criticism by any means and it’s essentially “dude, you shouldn’t be ranked so highly because your builds suck because they have the following problems.” Stick with the facts, be blunt if you would like with “these are the things you might do differently next time”, but for someone who used stock LG on his last airplane build, made a lot of sacrifices in the RL outline to integrate a hollow canopy area, whose flaps are not functional and whose flight model is so limited that even, I, a RL airline pilot and former military pilot with 4,500 hrs of flight time can’t even take off, I’d reconsider your approach to criticism and perhaps soften it a bit.

Just to make sure I’m not being unfair, your Bf isn’t bad, there are some very good bits there and you have a nice eye for shape and detail, but your approach to Boggy’s build is way off base for an airplane that actually mimics the RL thing pretty well. If you object, tell me how I’m wrong; for you, as with every enthusiastic builder on the site, I want to see all of us succeed. I think that if you soften your approach, choose not to come off the top rope, you’ll get a lot further, faster. Anyway, I’ll give you a chance to read this, perhaps respond, then I’ll delete it, no harm, no foul.

@CapnCrunk also, yes, I also read that story about Deke Slayton...I think that was in the Right Stuff, great story.

@CapnCrunk well, I’m certainly glad you like it for what it is. I’ve considered putting the bomb bay in, it could be done, though it would take making the Center section out of individual panels and adding to the part count. There’s this movement around here to keep the part count as low as possible, which tends to be impossible if you want to add things like details,lettering, hear doors, etc. or not dumb down the build too much. Anyway, I made the decision early on to delete the bay since it was generally the extra tank later on and there are no nukes in SP anyway, though it would be cool to replicate those doors in game. I spent a lot of time trying to get the flying qualities just right. The SP physics model is a bit simplistic, but not bad if you work around a few things such as the unrealistically high parasite drag model. Though the vast, vast majority of people around here have absolutely zero experience with RL aircraft there are a few of us who do and try and make builds that fly realistically, so they do exist here and there.

And thinking out loud, would it be possible to modify this build with a working bomb bay, for anyone wanting to replicate a Cold War Thud with a tactical nuke in the belly? Neat thing about the 105 is that the bay doors retracted into the fuselage, to reduce drag...but would make for a challenge in SP. By the time they went to SEA, the bomb bays carried an extra fuel tank, and the doors were strapped shut.

I definitely noticed the handling characteristics, which is a nice change of pace from the unrealistic behavior of so many other builds. I also tried to put her into a spin; got up to about 30k in full burner, about 70 degree climb angle. Hit autopilot, and there she went! Tumbled around for a bit, but retarded the throttle, and recovered around 9k. Bit of trivia: one of the Mercury 7 astronauts, Deke Slayton, did spin testing for the F-105. And I gotta say it again, this is one heck of a build. Probably one of the best here, and of my favorite Vietnam era plane. @ChiChiWerx

Yeah sorry, when I used it the first time I guess I did something wrong couldn’t get it up to speed’ tried it again and it worked fine great build@ChiChiWerx

@NANOMAN thanks! I thought this one had slipped into oblivion forever!

@GhostHTX well, thanks! Transitioning into a new job is difficult even in the best of circumstances. Glad to see you’re back, can’t wait to see what you build next.

@Rhubarb1263 yeah, Overload is good for most things, but it doesn’t do colors. If you want that reflectivity, I guess you could download a build, like this one, that has that color/reflectivity, and delete the build itself while keeping the cockpit and the color palette should remain for you to use. Of course, when you post it, it’ll come up as a successor post.

Hi! You are most welcome- this is a masterpiece. Im good. The last year has been challenging, with a new job that didnt quite pan out (lets just say that the responsibility / stress / workload vs remuneration ratio was a wee bit off). But, I start a whole new job in October and hopefully some balance can be restored to my life. I will be around here more, too! @ChiChiWerx

@ChiChiWerx yeh but i use overload to do the xml stuff

ok I will try that when you said that you do this for a living it reminded of my of when I flew the t-6 simulator and landed (which only me and my dad could do of the 8 of us as we had friends visiting ) but I was the only one to use the flaps and the conversation about them was:

me: where are the flaps
person running Sim: dont worry about it
me: never mind found them
I then used them knowing what they did and knowing they would let me land slower
@ChiChiWerx

how most landings ended when it didn't blow up @ChiChiWerx

@Nerfenthusiast yeah, so try this: First, you shouldn’t land with any bombs or tanks and you should be less than 75% fuel remaining. This will make it a lot easier. As you slow, extend the flaps fully, trim all the way nose up (slider down), establish a 200-230 mph approach speed (depends on weight, heavier=faster) and carry about 20-25% power until over the end of the runway and close to landing. It’s also important to fly somewhere close to a 3 degree glide path—which is a normal glide path all aircraft fly, too steep and you’ll have too much sink, bounce and crash when you try and round out for the flare. Aim for the approach end of the runway—as you fly in the approach end should just get bigger in the windscreen and your landing point shouldn’t move. You can actually fly it pretty much hands off it you get it on a reasonable glide path, on speed and trimmed up. As you come over the threshold (end of the runway), you should be close to the runway, then chop the power to idle and just barely pull back on the stick to flare. What’s crucial, as on all high-performance aircraft, is properly configured, on speed, on glide path and with some power on (here about 20%). What will make it much easier is less weight. If you have the patience, burn down to almost empty, then try it. I really ought to make a vid on how to do this...I can do it every time, but I do this for a living.

the main reason it crashes for my is it bounces @ChiChiWerx

I knew it was difficult to land and i like how you added the radar reflector on the nose gear too @ChiChiWerx