Not to nitpick, but this isn’t an E-model Phantom. The USN flew the A, B, J and N model Phantoms and the E model was a USAF jet with a distinctly more slender nose and an internal M61 cannon in the bulge below the radar. Unfortunately, you have more points than me so I can’t upvote this!
Found this one as someone else’s successor to a successor to a successor. Could tell it wasn’t his build, glad I found the original and the original builder. Very nice work!
More than what it seems at first, good dynamics, flies smoothly and performance is fairly accurate, at least in the ballpark. I like the fact that it's fairly maneuverable, which the RL jet was, and most other 737-sized aircraft are. It may roll a bit too quickly, but other builders make the mistake of making jets like these with abysmally slow roll rates, which RL aircraft just don't have. Plus, it can pitch a little, which is great and more true to life than other builds like this. The only gripe I might have is that the acceleration is way too fast and the wing loading too low, the RL jet really took awhile to accelerate and takeoffs were a bit hairy. The wings are blocky and not too scale (there are better ways of building wings), but the planform is fairly accurate. However, the big bomb is fun, the details are well thought out...if only we could solve the JATO bottle simulation. Nice work overall.
Definitely fun and whimsical. Now the X-1 needs to make it to operational service with some crappily ineffective beam-riding missiles (and gun???) and for goodness sake…a cockpit view!
Thirteenth! So, the F-100 (in)famously had a symmetric airfoil which led to this type of behavior: Sabre Dance. Not that SP really replicates that behavior that well, but why use the flat bottom wing?
Nice build, good flight model. You did make one odd choice with the mirror-imaged “USAF” on the bottom of the left wing, I have to wonder where that came from?
@WEEB if you ever need help with a build, especially with the flight model, just ask me. I’m willing to test things out and make suggestions. If not me, many people know how to adjust flight models for realistic behavior, all you have to do is ask.
@jamesPLANESii really? I mean, it looks impressive, but have you tried to fly it? It's got the weirdest flight model I've seen in awhile and even the creator admits that it has trouble taking off. The reason why it has trouble taking off is that the CoM is way too far in front of the main gear wheels. If you are looking for a reasonable rotation speed, you have to move the CoM very close to the main gear wheels as the pivot point for takeoff rotation is located there. If your CoM is too far in front, the elevator can't produce enough downforce at takeoff speeds (typically less than 200 KIAS) to lift the nose up. I'm still upvoting it now just for the build itself, but I'd recommend tweaking a few things and rereleasing it later, possibly with a D-21 on top.
@PannerTerkins gee, I wish I had more time to build. But as I've gotten into other hobbies and pastimes to occupy what little time I do have, so not sure when I'll resume. Thanks for asking, though.
200 KIAS liftoff wasn’t actually unrealistic. Fully loaded out in hot weather, the bomber version of the “Thud” would often lift off at 230 KIAS. The WW, though, was a bit lighter without all those iron bombs, so takeoffs were a bit slower. All those Century series jets had high takeoff, approach and landing speeds.
@Mage2IsTriggered interesting…so it’s not used exclusively as a torpedo bomber in that game and based on your assessment maybe it would have been more survivable if it had been employed as something other than a torpedo bomber. Part of the TBD’s issues was it’s tactics, low and slow to allow the torpedo delivery, which made it even more highly vulnerable. It’s also interesting that it does well against biplanes in WT, which I would expect IRL, as it’s faster than the typical biplane. WT battles are more like scrums with dozens of different types, in which you have as much of a chance to meet up with a biplane as a P-40 in the same battle.
@Mage2IsTriggered yes, this build looks very good. But I have to ask about your WT comment…I’ve played a little bit of WT, but never the TBD. IRL, the TBD was completely obsolete by the time the USN faced the Japanese in WWII, being too slow along with a suicidal delivery profile, and was absolutely slaughtered during the Battle of Midway. Making the sacrifice worse was the fact that the U.S. had a completely ineffective aerial torpedo at the time and scored zero hits during the battle. So, in WT, how is the TBD insanely powerful? Are you mixing this one up with the Dauntless SBD dive bomber, which despite being an earlier design, was actually a very good design with a great combat record?
Nice build…can you imagine flying one of these beasts from the Azores to NYC and back?!? I flew one leg yesterday from Lisbon to Dulles and that took almost 8 hours…in a jet! One of these things would have taken around 20 hours round trip! No thanks! Edit: This thing is 25 tons (tonnes…?) of fun! Just the right blend of features, reality and novelty to fritter away a few minutes trying to put a bomb on the deck of the Beast and get blown out of the sky!
@FalconDynamics you’re correct, the F-5 does have the LEXs and the nose was called the “platypus” nose, according to a USN Aggressor friend of mine who flew with the West Coast unit. And, yes, those features made a big difference, especially at high AoA, but the whole family of jets were/are extremely similar and all fly similarly. And while you can pull the nose around beyond what the standard F-5A can do, it’s just not a high AoA jet like an F-16. Watch the flight demos online…no high AoA slow flight flybys…to attempt to do so that close to the ground would inevitably end in disaster with the jet sinking into the crash. As for the keyboard warriors, that’s legitimate, but unfortunate that anyone wouldn’t at least get some sort of game controller, I wish anyone beyond casual players would get more invested. As for the sloppy drag model, yup, you’re right, it sucks and it’s frustrating that you need to remove and re-add drag, there’s no transonic drag rise, not enough induced (lift created) drag and builds that match RL performance at low airspeed seem to continue to slowly accelerate forever at higher speeds. But I suggest you don’t overthink the flat bottom vs. semi vs. symmetric thing…the flat bottom generally flies like a Cessna wing, the symmetric wing generally flies like a symmetric wing and the semi somewhere in between, validated by my own in game “testing”. It is interesting that @jamesPLANESii found what he calls an interesting “buffet” from 14-20 degrees…which is what symmetric airfoils do IRL, while I think @CoolPeach kinda went overboard in his analysis and added only a little beyond JP’s original post. But, 99.7% of even an F-5’s life, as well as other aircraft, is spent at AoAs less than 14 degrees. While striving to perfect the .3%, don’t forget the big picture is all I’m saying. And credit where credit is due, you’re clearly devoted, detail oriented and it’s a very good build worth all the praise, but don’t let it go to your head. If you want to continue this elsewhere I do have a Discord channel, ChiChiWerx #7355. We can argue the finer points of all things SP, if you would like.
@FalconDynamics it floats on landing and it has a distinct stall “break”. Sure the F-5 doesn’t use the NACA0009 airfoil, but the wing it does use is much closer in terms of drag and lift characteristics than any flat bottomed airfoil. Your build’s flight model is good, but it would have been closer to the real thing if you’d use the symmetric airfoil. How do I know? I have 500 instructor hours in the T-38, same family as the F-5, both flew very similarly and I swapped your build’s wing for the symmetric airfoil and I think it was more spot-on than before. And that’s from real life experience.
So, why are you using the Cessna wing? This thing should be using the symmetric airfoil, as the RL jet does. I may try changing it myself to see how it behaves. Update: I changed the wing to symmetric and it now flies like the real thing, much better energy loss at high AoA (7 G turn at max thrust, starts at 420 KIAS, 180 degrees decelerates to 350 KIAS) and it departs if you pull too much AoA.
Wow, the more I fly this, the more I'm impressed. It's very smooth, very similar to real life. That might be attributed to some of your formulas for the stab, though I would have made the trim much more effective. But it rolls nicely, pitches nicely, it's fairly easy to fly level, unlike every other build, even mine.
@FalconDynamics Ok, thanks. Flies well enough, actually the flight model is pretty good...well, the fact that the trim doesn't really do anything isn't a unique issue, seems quite prevalent in SP builds. But it's very smooth overall, doesn't fly at ridiculous speeds (though so many weapons would make the jet much more sluggish IRL), pulls a realistic amount of G. Again, just a quick first look, but it seems you were trying to emulate the real thing. How did you build the altimeter, if I may ask?
The biggest issue is that the build's vertical stabs start oscillating around 250 KIAS, sometimes quite severely, to the point that it's pulling .5 - 2 Gs up and down. Seems to vary with altitude and eventually goes away at higher airspeed (400 KIAS or so). Haven't had a chance to dive into the stab formula to see why it might be doing this. It may have something to do with auto-trim...? The F-5 didn't have auto-trim, though it did have an auto/manual flap setting option. Is the oscillation related to the 20 FPS issue?
This is an exceptional build, the flight model is outstanding, reminds me of a couple of my builds. One of the only things I would have done differently would have been to use the symmetric airfoil, just like the RL jet, which would fix that float on landing. I could write more details, but overall, excellent, really, really excellent.
@AlbertanPlaneMaker Yes, I’m older, have flown for more than 30 years. Retired USAF U-2, T-37, T-38, KC-135 pilot, instructor pilot, evaluator pilot. ATP type rated in the CRJ-200 and the 737. Currently fly for a major airline. Training on the 756 as we speak. When I was a kid, I built plastic model aircraft and RC aircraft. SP has that same feel and is why I’ve enjoyed it in the past.
Fun video, but including a dev console window at the top with the “VerticalG” readout would be informative. I, for one, am doubtful that the RL MiG-19 could fly an Immelmann starting at 270 KIAS without falling out of the sky. I’d also like to see an engagement from the Mirage’s POV, to see if that build has the delta wing’s characteristic “bat turn” capability with the accompanying energy loss leaving it slow at the end of the first turn. I’ll check out both your builds as I’m intrigued enough after watching this.
Dynamically, this is very good. Flies very well, not unrealistically as so many other builds. Accelerates…and decelerates realistically. Loses speed in the turns. Takes off and lands well. Nice work.
@LegendaryPilot yes, he is! Shot down over the Soviet Union on 1 May 1960 by an S-75 Dvina (SA-2 Guideline) missile while cruising above 65,000’. After his bailout and subsequent imprisonment for espionage in the USSR, he was repatriated in 1962 in exchange for Rudolf Abel, a British-born KGB spy who was captured in the U.S. After repatriation and testimony before Congress and much criticism for not having taking his issued “suicide pill”, Powers left the CIA, worked for Lockheed and finally wound up piloting a news helicopter in Los Angeles in the 1970s. In 1977, Powers and his cameraman were killed when his helicopter ran out of fuel short of Burbank airport. So, yes, same Francis Gary Powers.
@Erionh compatible with what @Erionh, VR? Built long before VR was a thing. But perhaps deserves a remaster…
+1@IQinventory I'd designate it as an "F-4J", those were deployed in Vietnam, which your current paint scheme approximately depicts.
+1Not to nitpick, but this isn’t an E-model Phantom. The USN flew the A, B, J and N model Phantoms and the E model was a USAF jet with a distinctly more slender nose and an internal M61 cannon in the bulge below the radar. Unfortunately, you have more points than me so I can’t upvote this!
+1Found this one as someone else’s successor to a successor to a successor. Could tell it wasn’t his build, glad I found the original and the original builder. Very nice work!
More than what it seems at first, good dynamics, flies smoothly and performance is fairly accurate, at least in the ballpark. I like the fact that it's fairly maneuverable, which the RL jet was, and most other 737-sized aircraft are. It may roll a bit too quickly, but other builders make the mistake of making jets like these with abysmally slow roll rates, which RL aircraft just don't have. Plus, it can pitch a little, which is great and more true to life than other builds like this. The only gripe I might have is that the acceleration is way too fast and the wing loading too low, the RL jet really took awhile to accelerate and takeoffs were a bit hairy. The wings are blocky and not too scale (there are better ways of building wings), but the planform is fairly accurate. However, the big bomb is fun, the details are well thought out...if only we could solve the JATO bottle simulation. Nice work overall.
+2Definitely fun and whimsical. Now the X-1 needs to make it to operational service with some crappily ineffective beam-riding missiles (and gun???) and for goodness sake…a cockpit view!
+2Looks great, but how come the power indicator doesn’t work, permanently at 0%?
Thirteenth! So, the F-100 (in)famously had a symmetric airfoil which led to this type of behavior: Sabre Dance. Not that SP really replicates that behavior that well, but why use the flat bottom wing?
@Trainzo thank you.
The build is very good, but the flight model isn’t s outstanding! Realistic performance, but easy enough to fly, much like the real thing.
@kasachstanball as long as it’s posted as a successor build (which is usually automatic), I have no problem with you using it for your build.
Nice build, good flight model. You did make one odd choice with the mirror-imaged “USAF” on the bottom of the left wing, I have to wonder where that came from?
+1@ThePogKing yes.
+2@MAHADI of course!
@LowtherInc no, doesn’t fly that well. But it was built more than 7 years ago when I didn’t really understand SP dynamics.
+1Beautiful flight model. I’m jealous.
+2Excellent build!
+1@WEEB you’ll have to tag me in a private post so that I can take a look. And, yes, the bobbing is an issue with most builds.
@WEEB if you ever need help with a build, especially with the flight model, just ask me. I’m willing to test things out and make suggestions. If not me, many people know how to adjust flight models for realistic behavior, all you have to do is ask.
+1@jamesPLANESii really? I mean, it looks impressive, but have you tried to fly it? It's got the weirdest flight model I've seen in awhile and even the creator admits that it has trouble taking off. The reason why it has trouble taking off is that the CoM is way too far in front of the main gear wheels. If you are looking for a reasonable rotation speed, you have to move the CoM very close to the main gear wheels as the pivot point for takeoff rotation is located there. If your CoM is too far in front, the elevator can't produce enough downforce at takeoff speeds (typically less than 200 KIAS) to lift the nose up. I'm still upvoting it now just for the build itself, but I'd recommend tweaking a few things and rereleasing it later, possibly with a D-21 on top.
+3@PannerTerkins gee, I wish I had more time to build. But as I've gotten into other hobbies and pastimes to occupy what little time I do have, so not sure when I'll resume. Thanks for asking, though.
200 KIAS liftoff wasn’t actually unrealistic. Fully loaded out in hot weather, the bomber version of the “Thud” would often lift off at 230 KIAS. The WW, though, was a bit lighter without all those iron bombs, so takeoffs were a bit slower. All those Century series jets had high takeoff, approach and landing speeds.
+1Seems like a great build, but, unfortunately, I can’t fly it from the pilot’s seat!
@Graingy I’m still here. But very low-key.
@Mage2IsTriggered I write overly formally? Didn’t think I was any more so than you…how so?
+1@Mage2IsTriggered interesting…so it’s not used exclusively as a torpedo bomber in that game and based on your assessment maybe it would have been more survivable if it had been employed as something other than a torpedo bomber. Part of the TBD’s issues was it’s tactics, low and slow to allow the torpedo delivery, which made it even more highly vulnerable. It’s also interesting that it does well against biplanes in WT, which I would expect IRL, as it’s faster than the typical biplane. WT battles are more like scrums with dozens of different types, in which you have as much of a chance to meet up with a biplane as a P-40 in the same battle.
+1@Mage2IsTriggered yes, this build looks very good. But I have to ask about your WT comment…I’ve played a little bit of WT, but never the TBD. IRL, the TBD was completely obsolete by the time the USN faced the Japanese in WWII, being too slow along with a suicidal delivery profile, and was absolutely slaughtered during the Battle of Midway. Making the sacrifice worse was the fact that the U.S. had a completely ineffective aerial torpedo at the time and scored zero hits during the battle. So, in WT, how is the TBD insanely powerful? Are you mixing this one up with the Dauntless SBD dive bomber, which despite being an earlier design, was actually a very good design with a great combat record?
+1@Sgtk did you fly this one?
+1Nice build…can you imagine flying one of these beasts from the Azores to NYC and back?!? I flew one leg yesterday from Lisbon to Dulles and that took almost 8 hours…in a jet! One of these things would have taken around 20 hours round trip! No thanks! Edit: This thing is 25 tons (tonnes…?) of fun! Just the right blend of features, reality and novelty to fritter away a few minutes trying to put a bomb on the deck of the Beast and get blown out of the sky!
+1@FalconDynamics you’re correct, the F-5 does have the LEXs and the nose was called the “platypus” nose, according to a USN Aggressor friend of mine who flew with the West Coast unit. And, yes, those features made a big difference, especially at high AoA, but the whole family of jets were/are extremely similar and all fly similarly. And while you can pull the nose around beyond what the standard F-5A can do, it’s just not a high AoA jet like an F-16. Watch the flight demos online…no high AoA slow flight flybys…to attempt to do so that close to the ground would inevitably end in disaster with the jet sinking into the crash. As for the keyboard warriors, that’s legitimate, but unfortunate that anyone wouldn’t at least get some sort of game controller, I wish anyone beyond casual players would get more invested. As for the sloppy drag model, yup, you’re right, it sucks and it’s frustrating that you need to remove and re-add drag, there’s no transonic drag rise, not enough induced (lift created) drag and builds that match RL performance at low airspeed seem to continue to slowly accelerate forever at higher speeds. But I suggest you don’t overthink the flat bottom vs. semi vs. symmetric thing…the flat bottom generally flies like a Cessna wing, the symmetric wing generally flies like a symmetric wing and the semi somewhere in between, validated by my own in game “testing”. It is interesting that @jamesPLANESii found what he calls an interesting “buffet” from 14-20 degrees…which is what symmetric airfoils do IRL, while I think @CoolPeach kinda went overboard in his analysis and added only a little beyond JP’s original post. But, 99.7% of even an F-5’s life, as well as other aircraft, is spent at AoAs less than 14 degrees. While striving to perfect the .3%, don’t forget the big picture is all I’m saying. And credit where credit is due, you’re clearly devoted, detail oriented and it’s a very good build worth all the praise, but don’t let it go to your head. If you want to continue this elsewhere I do have a Discord channel, ChiChiWerx #7355. We can argue the finer points of all things SP, if you would like.
+5@FalconDynamics it floats on landing and it has a distinct stall “break”. Sure the F-5 doesn’t use the NACA0009 airfoil, but the wing it does use is much closer in terms of drag and lift characteristics than any flat bottomed airfoil. Your build’s flight model is good, but it would have been closer to the real thing if you’d use the symmetric airfoil. How do I know? I have 500 instructor hours in the T-38, same family as the F-5, both flew very similarly and I swapped your build’s wing for the symmetric airfoil and I think it was more spot-on than before. And that’s from real life experience.
+2So, why are you using the Cessna wing? This thing should be using the symmetric airfoil, as the RL jet does. I may try changing it myself to see how it behaves. Update: I changed the wing to symmetric and it now flies like the real thing, much better energy loss at high AoA (7 G turn at max thrust, starts at 420 KIAS, 180 degrees decelerates to 350 KIAS) and it departs if you pull too much AoA.
+1Wow, the more I fly this, the more I'm impressed. It's very smooth, very similar to real life. That might be attributed to some of your formulas for the stab, though I would have made the trim much more effective. But it rolls nicely, pitches nicely, it's fairly easy to fly level, unlike every other build, even mine.
@FalconDynamics Ok, thanks. Flies well enough, actually the flight model is pretty good...well, the fact that the trim doesn't really do anything isn't a unique issue, seems quite prevalent in SP builds. But it's very smooth overall, doesn't fly at ridiculous speeds (though so many weapons would make the jet much more sluggish IRL), pulls a realistic amount of G. Again, just a quick first look, but it seems you were trying to emulate the real thing. How did you build the altimeter, if I may ask?
The biggest issue is that the build's vertical stabs start oscillating around 250 KIAS, sometimes quite severely, to the point that it's pulling .5 - 2 Gs up and down. Seems to vary with altitude and eventually goes away at higher airspeed (400 KIAS or so). Haven't had a chance to dive into the stab formula to see why it might be doing this. It may have something to do with auto-trim...? The F-5 didn't have auto-trim, though it did have an auto/manual flap setting option. Is the oscillation related to the 20 FPS issue?
@Planebuilder2123 you did? Where is it?
ChiChiWerx #7355
@ollielebananiaCFSP sure, why not?
This is an exceptional build, the flight model is outstanding, reminds me of a couple of my builds. One of the only things I would have done differently would have been to use the symmetric airfoil, just like the RL jet, which would fix that float on landing. I could write more details, but overall, excellent, really, really excellent.
+2@AlbertanPlaneMaker Yes, I’m older, have flown for more than 30 years. Retired USAF U-2, T-37, T-38, KC-135 pilot, instructor pilot, evaluator pilot. ATP type rated in the CRJ-200 and the 737. Currently fly for a major airline. Training on the 756 as we speak. When I was a kid, I built plastic model aircraft and RC aircraft. SP has that same feel and is why I’ve enjoyed it in the past.
+3Cool bear, how’d you do it?
+2Fun video, but including a dev console window at the top with the “VerticalG” readout would be informative. I, for one, am doubtful that the RL MiG-19 could fly an Immelmann starting at 270 KIAS without falling out of the sky. I’d also like to see an engagement from the Mirage’s POV, to see if that build has the delta wing’s characteristic “bat turn” capability with the accompanying energy loss leaving it slow at the end of the first turn. I’ll check out both your builds as I’m intrigued enough after watching this.
@SirLoafsAlot it’s ChiChiWerx #7355
Simple, yet satisfying.
+1Nice build, fun to fly. I like that you used the symmetric wing and kept the performance numbers fairly close.
Dynamically, this is very good. Flies very well, not unrealistically as so many other builds. Accelerates…and decelerates realistically. Loses speed in the turns. Takes off and lands well. Nice work.
+3@Emirates380 I’m not a mod…
@LegendaryPilot yes, he is! Shot down over the Soviet Union on 1 May 1960 by an S-75 Dvina (SA-2 Guideline) missile while cruising above 65,000’. After his bailout and subsequent imprisonment for espionage in the USSR, he was repatriated in 1962 in exchange for Rudolf Abel, a British-born KGB spy who was captured in the U.S. After repatriation and testimony before Congress and much criticism for not having taking his issued “suicide pill”, Powers left the CIA, worked for Lockheed and finally wound up piloting a news helicopter in Los Angeles in the 1970s. In 1977, Powers and his cameraman were killed when his helicopter ran out of fuel short of Burbank airport. So, yes, same Francis Gary Powers.
@Yudha hello, yes, very old post. “CollisionsOff=True”.
@MrShenanigansSP link?