Very nice build of an underappreciated subject. You only have 1,600 points, but I suspect you’ll gain many followers as you continue to improve your skills.
Simple and nicely done Gee Bee. It kind of flies like a Gee Bee in that it’s very touchy and prone to stall and wing drop from the fact you’re using the symmetric airfoil with really large ailerons. The RL plane was very touchy due to being extremely short coupled with the short fuse and tiny vertical stab and rudder. But longitudinal stability isn’t done the same way in SP as IRL, so I appreciate your approach. Cockpit view is accurate with that long schnoz that’s really hard to see over and it’s fairly tough (but not impossible) to land correctly. I would suggest you reduce the forward traction on the brakes to .125 or lower as default SP brake effectiveness is way, way too high and the RL plane didn’t have the tendency to catapult onto its back if you simply brushed the brake pedals. The LG is a bit more widely spaced than the original, perhaps a concession to SP, or maybe use the Ortho feature next time you build a Gee Bee, which I encourage you to do as you’re just starting out, care about the flight modeling and a really nice, detailed build of this airplane is what we need on the site.
@Aerofy you’re welcome. Reading back over this older post, everything I’ve seen regarding autoroll has been because of asymmetric connections; however, since the advent of the Ortho and Attachment Mods being incorporated into the basic game, I’ve modified my building technique slightly to make extra certain this problem doesn’t occur. Now, when I build, I place the part on one side exactly where it should go. I then nudge the part a few clicks out of the way, disconnect all attachments, mirror the individual part to the opposite side and then reattach both parts symmetrically using the attachment tool. I then nudge both parts back to where they both should be, i.e., just nudge the parts in the opposite direction the same number of clicks as when I removed the first part. A little time consuming, but as you say, the only way to ensure you’ll avoid the autoroll problem.
Well, the shape and look are spot on, the performance isn’t ridiculous, though the RL A-7 could do a bit better than 360 knots at S.L. But the jet was said to be “she sure ain’t fast, but she sure is slow!” Turn is ok, I didn’t put it on the Dev Console to get the vertical G...one thing though, like most attack/bomber aircraft with a lower thrust to weight ratio and often bigger wings (vice pure air to air fighters), was that the jet scrubbed a LOT of speed in turns so that sustained turn rate isn’t fantastic. This one doesn’t decelerate in turns like the RL jet. What @Mustang51 is referring to is the A-7F, which was a lengthened A-7 with a much better engine, Mach 1.6 performance and greatly improved night/all weather interdiction capabilities. The USAF didn’t buy it, preferring to stick with the F-16 instead. The F version had an afterburner, the normal A-7 did NOT have AB, though the highly efficient non-afterburning turbofan (TF41) was a first for tactical aircraft. Something else I would suggest for next time is perhaps split the trim and flaps; for some reason the SP community thinks those two systems are interrelated and use the same control. A pilot can adjust the trim at any speed, while flaps are only extended below a certain speed, so moving the trim and having the flaps extend at 400 knots would be a disaster IRL!
@Creastroy yes, “G” on a keyboard if you’re on a PC, or on mobile, you can hit the down arrow on you control stack along the bottom of the screen and hit the blue “Gear” button.
@ThatsAHotTopic that's what I thought you meant, but it's not usually called "docking", it's called air to air refueling usually. And those lights are known as "director lights". If you're not in the correct position relative the boom, there will be red and green up and down/side to side arrows to indicate to the receiver to move appropriately.
@ChisP no, not really. The 737 has a flaps 40 setting, the U-2’s flaps extended to 35 degrees, the T-38’s flaps to about 45 degrees, though often we’d use 60% flaps for touch and go landings. Flaps usually extend at least 30 degrees and with little wings like the F-104’s often far more than that.
@WSindustries is what difficult...? Landing the F-104? Not particularly, if you know how to do it correctly. Watch the video for the speeds and power settings, which will go a long way to helping you do it correctly. If you don’t fly it correctly, then, yeah, it can be difficult in that you might not reach the runway in one piece. Try it for yourself after @asteroidbook345 uploads it, then let me know how you did!
I can land it fairly easily. Just deploy the speedbrakes (AG2), go to idle or nearly so, passing 300 KIAS, lower the gear, then the flaps to full, as you approach 200 KIAS, push the power up to 50-60% depending on weight. BE SURE TO RETRACT THE SPEEDBARKES! You make the mistake of huge power corrections. At this time, you should be ready to start down on glide path. Hold no slower than 165 KIAS with 50-60% power. No problem, she lands nicely.
I have to be honest, you’ve inspired me to build my own 104. Don’t worry, it’ll probably be months before you see me post it. I didn’t think it was possible to build a good Starfighter, but helping you out on the flight model has changed my mind.
Looks good so far, I’d publish approach and landing speeds—no slower than 165 KIAS on final, pull power to idle (<20%) approaching the threshold and flare slightly to land. WARNING: Be careful to not fly slower than 165 KIAS on final (approximately 50-60% RPM fully configured), as well as abrupt maneuvering, which may result in exceeding the critical AoA, wing rock, sinking and stall. Also, mention that flaps add A LOT of drag and a good addition of power when extended. Good luck, looks great.
I fly the 737. As for the speed the 75’s nose comes down on landing, 120 KIAS/140 mph is a pretty good approximation, that’s what I would use as an average.
BTW, if you didn’t know this, you can easily switch between knots and mph..and kph..by opening “Setting”, and changing to “nautical” under “Unit System”. That feature came in...V1.6(?) a little while ago. I generally use “Nautical”, except when applicable to use “Imperial”. A tiny bit tougher than switching between IAS, TAS and GS, but still easy. I’m building a Soviet fighter now and need to figure out if they used the metric system for aviation in the USSR during the 1970s.
@klm747klm747 well, you got me. The triple ring Cessna airspeed indicator marks both. And WWII aircraft generally used MPH. However, of all the aircraft I’ve flown over 30 years—besides the Cessna 152, 172 and the T-41—every other aircraft, the T-37, T-38, KC-135, U-2, CRJ 200 and 737 all use knots. And so does the 757. You can find the applicable speeds, in knots, online. BTW, the speed at which the nose comes down isn’t set, it’s based on weight and landing speed, though 120 knots (or 140 mph for all the “players” out there) is a fair average value to use. Looking forward to seeing your autoland in action.
Well, it doesn’t fly unrealistically, though it accelerates like a snail and it’s not fast enough (to your credit, you already pointed this out). It takes off and lands nicely, it has a lot of wing, probably more than the RL plane, which makes it float on landing. But it does look good, is a very interesting subject and doesn’t skew ridiculously towards any extreme and the insignia are fantastic! Nice work!
Well, fuel in jets is typically measured in pounds or kilograms, but to match your question, I’ll use liters. In the 1960s, fighter type aircraft carried anywhere from 2,300-2,400 liters (MiG-21 and BAC Lighting to 7,500 liters (F-4). The greatest internal fuel capacity carried by a fighter, at that time or any other, was most likely the Tupolev Tu-28P “Fiddler”, which held the title as the “world’s largest fighter”, but was really an interceptor aircraft, which probably carried 16,700 liters of fuel internally. Internal fuel capacity varied widely, but it was invariably based on the size of the aircraft. The bigger the internal volume, the more gas the jet will probably carry, as fighters typically will fill every possible open space not taken up with cockpit, electronics, hydraulic systems, flight controls or intake ducts with fuel. Additionally, almost every single jet fighter out there will carry external tanks to increase fuel carried, though they are the first thing jettisoned going into an air to air engagement. Given all the variables, it might be difficult to estimate a time aloft, but I’m going to attempt to give one to you. Bear in mind that mission profile also impacts time aloft greatly. A low level, high speed interdiction profile will burn far more gas than a CAP loiter. And afterburner usage burned a lot of gas, which is one reason why air to air engagements don’t usually last more than 2 minutes. Given all this, unrefueled mission durations (and most NATO profiles, even in training, included air to air refueling) were anywhere from 45 mins (MiG-21 and Lightning) to 2 hrs (Phantom). Now, you’re probably asking this because SP fuel burn is too high. I contend, though, most SP users simply fly around at 100% power on power multiplied engines, which IRL would burn fuel just as fast. This results in running out of gas within 5 mins. I can stretch out a flight on a realistically loaded jet to 20 mins or more, long enough to want to just land and be done, with the added benefit of a replica build handling and flying more realistically as the jet is heavy at the start and much less so at the end. I hate, hate, hate unlimited fuel!
@Hedero yes, regarding FT scaling, I usually will save the assembly as a sub and start a new build with only that sub and scale everything by unchecking the “Scale Only Selected Parts” box. That usually works. Then I save the resized assembly as a new sub. As for wrapping, nudge, nudge, nudge. It can get tedious, but the end result is worth it. My F-20 has wrapped insignia on the intakes, took a look at that one to see how I did it. Good luck, we’re all counting on you!
@Hedero, in the event you need insignia for a future project, you could use one of these, they’re all accurate dimensions and many segmented options available for you to wrap around your builds as required.
Ok, you made an absolutely unforgivable mistake, IMHO...you left off the stars and bars! I’m sure you have a good reason for doing so, but if you know anything about me, you’ll know I’d never leave off the very best national insignia! However, the sheer charisma of the Thunderbolt compensates for that decision, so I forgive you. It doesn’t fly quite fast enough, the real thing was a 400 mph airplane, this one isn’t quite so fast, especially down low, but you actually have enough trim authority!!! That alone is worth 5 upvotes! Shape is great, the subject is fantastic and fantastically overlooked in this community and the shape of the cowling is spot on! Two thumbs up from me!
@SwiftFoxe I was not familiar with Cengiz Topel, but now I am, so thank you for that. I’m planning on rebuilding this jet to be more accurate as it was built prior to the latest updates and it isn’t as accurate as I would like it to be. So, it may take awhile to get this done, plus I’m most of the way on another build at this time, which I hope to finish soon. Do you have some pics of that F-100 to look at and see what would be required to accurately portray that jet?
I almost always form and break connections manually using the “Attachments” tool because it allows me to build perfectly symmetrical connections which prevents the dreaded “autoroll” problem. And I never, ever use the mirror tool unless the part I’m mirroring is disconnected from all other parts. I then attach both parts manually. Also, using the connection tool enables you to make multiple attachments at the same point, something which is impossible when using the default attachment by placing two parts together.
For attaching small parts: On Windows, at the top of the screen, there should be an “Attachments” drop down menu. Once selected, click on “Add Connection”. A dialogue box will open instructing you to “Select First Part”. Once you do that, you should see all the blue connection point appear on that part. Select the desired connection point, and the dialogue box will tell you to “Select Second Part”. Once you select the second part, you will see the blue connection points on that part. Select the desired connection point and you should see an “Added Connection” message appear. You can also view all connections for any part by selecting the “Show Connections” box. Connections will appear as a green line between parts. To disconnect a connection (useful for disconnecting multiple connections on a single part, for modifying a part’s shape without affecting another part, disconnecting arch rotator parts and many other functions). Select “Show Connections”, click on the desired part and right click on the part you would like to disconnect.
@Sm10684 engineering takes a bit of math in school, so be prepared to grind through that to get to where you want to get. Some of the best advice I heard was from an engineering department chair at UVA, who told us, “If you absolutely love math, be a mathematician. If you love building things and figuring out how they work, then get through the math to become an engineer.” I think that’s great advice.
You’re braver than I was at your age, I’d be worried about getting that thing back together, though this one does have a cracked block. Don’t ever be afraid about taking things apart to see how they work, even if they work perfectly well. If you are also fairly good at math, you should consider engineering as a future career choice. Now, if you really want to learn a lot about how that thing works, put it back together before you trash it.
Nice build, fun to fly. Like you, have always liked the G.91, reminds me of what might have been an F-86D if optimized for the attack mission instead of the AD mission. Don’t know which criteria you’re using, but this old rabbit turns perfectly well, perhaps too well, which a functioning G meter would reveal (either that or using the dev console). You don’t need mods for functional instruments, just check out the G meter on my F-20, it just takes a rotator and an input formula, which you can do easily on any platform now. This one lacks flaps, which are easy enough, and should have much more trim authority (it’s perfectly controllable down to 160 KIAS, but I have to hold constant back stick on final approach at the proper approach speeds). But it’s fun and I like the attempt at a partial cockpit, something to which I’m “partial”, myself! Nice work!
Excellent build, good flight model. My own personal complaint (and many will disagree with me) is the unlimited fuel (boo, hiss!), especially given this is such a large heavy build you might have loaded the RL fuel quantity and the build would have never wanted for endurance. However, I appreciate the realism, or at least the trickiness with the takeoff procedure. The details are great, the build quality is good (though you should try using inlets to model control surfaces) and the overall aesthetic is great. Nice work, wish I could upvote this and I hope this takes you to platinum.
Overall, very good build. This one deserves an upvote solely for the way you built the cowling, which gives me hope for a good P-47 build here. The flight model is also pretty good, turn rate and performance is fairly close. The roll rate should be faster, IMHO, and the trim authority is lacking and the flap extension pitches the nose up waaaaayyyy too high (common SP error, perhaps I’ll post something about this trend). But it takes off and lands really well and flies nicely. Here’s a Spotlight, nice build!
@TrislandianAlliance, landing on speed should be accomplished on every type of landing, whether it’s in the boat or on a runway. On the boat, an on speed landing helps ensure you a. Don’t fall out of the sky prior to hitting the deck, b. That the hook engages a cable and c. The plane doesn’t break the wire on engagement. On land, landing on speed helps to ensure you a. Don’t fall out of the sky prior to hitting the ground, b. Land in the first 1/3 (or less) of the runway and c. Validates your landing data so that you don’t go rolling off the end of the runway while standing in the brakes. Every plane I’ve had the pleasure of flying has also had published evaluation standards which make sure pilots fly on speed on final—the U-2 has a 2 knot window of -0 to 2 knots fast for a no flap approach, the T-38 was something like -5 to 10 knots for a normal landing and the mighty Guppy stabilized approach criteria is only “momentary” deviations of -0 to 10 KIAS below 1000’ AFE. Seems tight, but when you use Autobrakes MAX on a 7,000 ft runway in gusty winds and your stopping distance is more than 6,500 ft, you’d best land on speed in the touchdown zone, otherwise you’re going to surprise all the pax in the back of the jet when you have to go around or while 4 wheeling off the end of the runway. So, yeah, regardless of the runway, land on speed.
Damper on the shocks of your custom gear and lots of it, whatever it takes 200%, 300% or 1700%. This reduces your landing gear’s “springiness” and resultant gear rebound. @brians1209 that’s not a solution that’s practical for every build. Many builds don’t have drag chutes, pilot technique varies greatly (especially here) and simply not landing fast doesn’t necessarily reduce bounce, and not even a hard touchdown guarantees a bounce. However, even for experienced pilots, the gear has to provide a moderate degree of shock absorption (or more, if landing on the boat), which requires higher damper values. Considering these factors and reading your advice, I would like to suggest you reassess your “very slow” landing speed and change your advice to “try and land ON speed”. If you’re consistently bouncing, you’re right, you’re probably landing fast.
Flies great, good weapons, interesting features, lots of FT carpentry went into this one. What I really want, though, is that Swedish version, exactly as depicted in the thumbnail, because that looks awesome!
Looks interesting, actually flies relatively well. Some things you might consider doing differently next time: more drag reduction and less power multiplier can help achieve the level flight performance you want while making sure it won’t accelerate going straight up and it needs a whole lot more nose up trim authority, because while high speed handling is pretty good, low speed handling is pretty tricky.
@mikoyanster yes, it would. But I doubt anyone in this community would have the patience to watch the whole thing. Doesn’t mean I shouldn't attempt it. I can record clips and post them on YouTube, as for the editing, what do you use to edit your vids and include the text boxes?
Well, this video brings up as many questions as answers for me. I have to pause the vid to read the text boxes, as they aren’t on screen long enough to really digest the information. My biggest questions on your technique are as follows: Why do you have a separate cruise engine that activates after takeoff? Why not just reduce your build’s drag? An alternative/additional method is to use FT to duplicate the ram air effect, adding a bit of thrust at higher speeds. You could also use a/the same FT formula to further reduce engine power at higher altitudes. Also, why only activate your afterburner above a certain speed? IRL, afterburners light up whenever the throttle is pushed up into the MAX detent(s), they are not speed dependent. Lastly, I use the fuselage parts, the fuel weight itself and then I might resort to using dead weight—the dead weight modifiable in every fuselage piece, not a part specifically placed to simulate deadweight—to balance out the build. I don’t typically add a block solely for deadweight and I never use a fuel tank, as most RL aircraft have fuel distributed around the aircraft (mostly in the central area of the fuse and the wings). Moving the fuel around the build allows one to use it for balance while also placing it approximately where it would be IRL. Your technique simplifies this so much it isn’t possible to realistically duplicate these things.
Very nice build of an underappreciated subject. You only have 1,600 points, but I suspect you’ll gain many followers as you continue to improve your skills.
+1@moonbat thanks!
Simple and nicely done Gee Bee. It kind of flies like a Gee Bee in that it’s very touchy and prone to stall and wing drop from the fact you’re using the symmetric airfoil with really large ailerons. The RL plane was very touchy due to being extremely short coupled with the short fuse and tiny vertical stab and rudder. But longitudinal stability isn’t done the same way in SP as IRL, so I appreciate your approach. Cockpit view is accurate with that long schnoz that’s really hard to see over and it’s fairly tough (but not impossible) to land correctly. I would suggest you reduce the forward traction on the brakes to .125 or lower as default SP brake effectiveness is way, way too high and the RL plane didn’t have the tendency to catapult onto its back if you simply brushed the brake pedals. The LG is a bit more widely spaced than the original, perhaps a concession to SP, or maybe use the Ortho feature next time you build a Gee Bee, which I encourage you to do as you’re just starting out, care about the flight modeling and a really nice, detailed build of this airplane is what we need on the site.
Kawanishi N1K Shiden “Rex”...very nice.
@Aerofy you’re welcome. Reading back over this older post, everything I’ve seen regarding autoroll has been because of asymmetric connections; however, since the advent of the Ortho and Attachment Mods being incorporated into the basic game, I’ve modified my building technique slightly to make extra certain this problem doesn’t occur. Now, when I build, I place the part on one side exactly where it should go. I then nudge the part a few clicks out of the way, disconnect all attachments, mirror the individual part to the opposite side and then reattach both parts symmetrically using the attachment tool. I then nudge both parts back to where they both should be, i.e., just nudge the parts in the opposite direction the same number of clicks as when I removed the first part. A little time consuming, but as you say, the only way to ensure you’ll avoid the autoroll problem.
Well, the shape and look are spot on, the performance isn’t ridiculous, though the RL A-7 could do a bit better than 360 knots at S.L. But the jet was said to be “she sure ain’t fast, but she sure is slow!” Turn is ok, I didn’t put it on the Dev Console to get the vertical G...one thing though, like most attack/bomber aircraft with a lower thrust to weight ratio and often bigger wings (vice pure air to air fighters), was that the jet scrubbed a LOT of speed in turns so that sustained turn rate isn’t fantastic. This one doesn’t decelerate in turns like the RL jet. What @Mustang51 is referring to is the A-7F, which was a lengthened A-7 with a much better engine, Mach 1.6 performance and greatly improved night/all weather interdiction capabilities. The USAF didn’t buy it, preferring to stick with the F-16 instead. The F version had an afterburner, the normal A-7 did NOT have AB, though the highly efficient non-afterburning turbofan (TF41) was a first for tactical aircraft. Something else I would suggest for next time is perhaps split the trim and flaps; for some reason the SP community thinks those two systems are interrelated and use the same control. A pilot can adjust the trim at any speed, while flaps are only extended below a certain speed, so moving the trim and having the flaps extend at 400 knots would be a disaster IRL!
+4@Creastroy yes, “G” on a keyboard if you’re on a PC, or on mobile, you can hit the down arrow on you control stack along the bottom of the screen and hit the blue “Gear” button.
@ThatsAHotTopic that's what I thought you meant, but it's not usually called "docking", it's called air to air refueling usually. And those lights are known as "director lights". If you're not in the correct position relative the boom, there will be red and green up and down/side to side arrows to indicate to the receiver to move appropriately.
Wow, an absolutely beautiful build and a unique subject. Well thought out, designed and constructed with interesting features.
+1So, can you explain the light system you added?
@ChisP no, not really. The 737 has a flaps 40 setting, the U-2’s flaps extended to 35 degrees, the T-38’s flaps to about 45 degrees, though often we’d use 60% flaps for touch and go landings. Flaps usually extend at least 30 degrees and with little wings like the F-104’s often far more than that.
@ThePilotDude sure, tag me on an unlisted and I’ll take it for a spin.
@WSindustries is what difficult...? Landing the F-104? Not particularly, if you know how to do it correctly. Watch the video for the speeds and power settings, which will go a long way to helping you do it correctly. If you don’t fly it correctly, then, yeah, it can be difficult in that you might not reach the runway in one piece. Try it for yourself after @asteroidbook345 uploads it, then let me know how you did!
+1@asteroidbook345 @ACEPILOT109
I use either a joystick or a game controller...the keyboard and/or mouse don't provide the control required for builds which fly realistically, JMHO.
I can land it fairly easily. Just deploy the speedbrakes (AG2), go to idle or nearly so, passing 300 KIAS, lower the gear, then the flaps to full, as you approach 200 KIAS, push the power up to 50-60% depending on weight. BE SURE TO RETRACT THE SPEEDBARKES! You make the mistake of huge power corrections. At this time, you should be ready to start down on glide path. Hold no slower than 165 KIAS with 50-60% power. No problem, she lands nicely.
+1One question: how did you post in that black blocky font?
I have to be honest, you’ve inspired me to build my own 104. Don’t worry, it’ll probably be months before you see me post it. I didn’t think it was possible to build a good Starfighter, but helping you out on the flight model has changed my mind.
Looks good so far, I’d publish approach and landing speeds—no slower than 165 KIAS on final, pull power to idle (<20%) approaching the threshold and flare slightly to land. WARNING: Be careful to not fly slower than 165 KIAS on final (approximately 50-60% RPM fully configured), as well as abrupt maneuvering, which may result in exceeding the critical AoA, wing rock, sinking and stall. Also, mention that flaps add A LOT of drag and a good addition of power when extended. Good luck, looks great.
That...and an F-104? How many airplanes are you working on???
I fly the 737. As for the speed the 75’s nose comes down on landing, 120 KIAS/140 mph is a pretty good approximation, that’s what I would use as an average.
BTW, if you didn’t know this, you can easily switch between knots and mph..and kph..by opening “Setting”, and changing to “nautical” under “Unit System”. That feature came in...V1.6(?) a little while ago. I generally use “Nautical”, except when applicable to use “Imperial”. A tiny bit tougher than switching between IAS, TAS and GS, but still easy. I’m building a Soviet fighter now and need to figure out if they used the metric system for aviation in the USSR during the 1970s.
@klm747klm747 well, you got me. The triple ring Cessna airspeed indicator marks both. And WWII aircraft generally used MPH. However, of all the aircraft I’ve flown over 30 years—besides the Cessna 152, 172 and the T-41—every other aircraft, the T-37, T-38, KC-135, U-2, CRJ 200 and 737 all use knots. And so does the 757. You can find the applicable speeds, in knots, online. BTW, the speed at which the nose comes down isn’t set, it’s based on weight and landing speed, though 120 knots (or 140 mph for all the “players” out there) is a fair average value to use. Looking forward to seeing your autoland in action.
Use knots. Knots is what pilots use when they fly.
Interesting. Does it lower the nose after touchdown?
Well, it doesn’t fly unrealistically, though it accelerates like a snail and it’s not fast enough (to your credit, you already pointed this out). It takes off and lands nicely, it has a lot of wing, probably more than the RL plane, which makes it float on landing. But it does look good, is a very interesting subject and doesn’t skew ridiculously towards any extreme and the insignia are fantastic! Nice work!
@brians1209 they’re a bit high, but not as high as what many here contend. Probably twice as thirsty as their RL counterparts.
Well, fuel in jets is typically measured in pounds or kilograms, but to match your question, I’ll use liters. In the 1960s, fighter type aircraft carried anywhere from 2,300-2,400 liters (MiG-21 and BAC Lighting to 7,500 liters (F-4). The greatest internal fuel capacity carried by a fighter, at that time or any other, was most likely the Tupolev Tu-28P “Fiddler”, which held the title as the “world’s largest fighter”, but was really an interceptor aircraft, which probably carried 16,700 liters of fuel internally. Internal fuel capacity varied widely, but it was invariably based on the size of the aircraft. The bigger the internal volume, the more gas the jet will probably carry, as fighters typically will fill every possible open space not taken up with cockpit, electronics, hydraulic systems, flight controls or intake ducts with fuel. Additionally, almost every single jet fighter out there will carry external tanks to increase fuel carried, though they are the first thing jettisoned going into an air to air engagement. Given all the variables, it might be difficult to estimate a time aloft, but I’m going to attempt to give one to you. Bear in mind that mission profile also impacts time aloft greatly. A low level, high speed interdiction profile will burn far more gas than a CAP loiter. And afterburner usage burned a lot of gas, which is one reason why air to air engagements don’t usually last more than 2 minutes. Given all this, unrefueled mission durations (and most NATO profiles, even in training, included air to air refueling) were anywhere from 45 mins (MiG-21 and Lightning) to 2 hrs (Phantom). Now, you’re probably asking this because SP fuel burn is too high. I contend, though, most SP users simply fly around at 100% power on power multiplied engines, which IRL would burn fuel just as fast. This results in running out of gas within 5 mins. I can stretch out a flight on a realistically loaded jet to 20 mins or more, long enough to want to just land and be done, with the added benefit of a replica build handling and flying more realistically as the jet is heavy at the start and much less so at the end. I hate, hate, hate unlimited fuel!
+1@Hedero yes, regarding FT scaling, I usually will save the assembly as a sub and start a new build with only that sub and scale everything by unchecking the “Scale Only Selected Parts” box. That usually works. Then I save the resized assembly as a new sub. As for wrapping, nudge, nudge, nudge. It can get tedious, but the end result is worth it. My F-20 has wrapped insignia on the intakes, took a look at that one to see how I did it. Good luck, we’re all counting on you!
@Hedero, in the event you need insignia for a future project, you could use one of these, they’re all accurate dimensions and many segmented options available for you to wrap around your builds as required.
Ok, you made an absolutely unforgivable mistake, IMHO...you left off the stars and bars! I’m sure you have a good reason for doing so, but if you know anything about me, you’ll know I’d never leave off the very best national insignia! However, the sheer charisma of the Thunderbolt compensates for that decision, so I forgive you. It doesn’t fly quite fast enough, the real thing was a 400 mph airplane, this one isn’t quite so fast, especially down low, but you actually have enough trim authority!!! That alone is worth 5 upvotes! Shape is great, the subject is fantastic and fantastically overlooked in this community and the shape of the cowling is spot on! Two thumbs up from me!
@SwiftFoxe I was not familiar with Cengiz Topel, but now I am, so thank you for that. I’m planning on rebuilding this jet to be more accurate as it was built prior to the latest updates and it isn’t as accurate as I would like it to be. So, it may take awhile to get this done, plus I’m most of the way on another build at this time, which I hope to finish soon. Do you have some pics of that F-100 to look at and see what would be required to accurately portray that jet?
I almost always form and break connections manually using the “Attachments” tool because it allows me to build perfectly symmetrical connections which prevents the dreaded “autoroll” problem. And I never, ever use the mirror tool unless the part I’m mirroring is disconnected from all other parts. I then attach both parts manually. Also, using the connection tool enables you to make multiple attachments at the same point, something which is impossible when using the default attachment by placing two parts together.
For attaching small parts: On Windows, at the top of the screen, there should be an “Attachments” drop down menu. Once selected, click on “Add Connection”. A dialogue box will open instructing you to “Select First Part”. Once you do that, you should see all the blue connection point appear on that part. Select the desired connection point, and the dialogue box will tell you to “Select Second Part”. Once you select the second part, you will see the blue connection points on that part. Select the desired connection point and you should see an “Added Connection” message appear. You can also view all connections for any part by selecting the “Show Connections” box. Connections will appear as a green line between parts. To disconnect a connection (useful for disconnecting multiple connections on a single part, for modifying a part’s shape without affecting another part, disconnecting arch rotator parts and many other functions). Select “Show Connections”, click on the desired part and right click on the part you would like to disconnect.
@Sm10684 engineering takes a bit of math in school, so be prepared to grind through that to get to where you want to get. Some of the best advice I heard was from an engineering department chair at UVA, who told us, “If you absolutely love math, be a mathematician. If you love building things and figuring out how they work, then get through the math to become an engineer.” I think that’s great advice.
+2You’re braver than I was at your age, I’d be worried about getting that thing back together, though this one does have a cracked block. Don’t ever be afraid about taking things apart to see how they work, even if they work perfectly well. If you are also fairly good at math, you should consider engineering as a future career choice. Now, if you really want to learn a lot about how that thing works, put it back together before you trash it.
+2Nice build, fun to fly. Like you, have always liked the G.91, reminds me of what might have been an F-86D if optimized for the attack mission instead of the AD mission. Don’t know which criteria you’re using, but this old rabbit turns perfectly well, perhaps too well, which a functioning G meter would reveal (either that or using the dev console). You don’t need mods for functional instruments, just check out the G meter on my F-20, it just takes a rotator and an input formula, which you can do easily on any platform now. This one lacks flaps, which are easy enough, and should have much more trim authority (it’s perfectly controllable down to 160 KIAS, but I have to hold constant back stick on final approach at the proper approach speeds). But it’s fun and I like the attempt at a partial cockpit, something to which I’m “partial”, myself! Nice work!
@jelybaca surely, you jest...25K and higher points is the highest rank, known as “the Platinum” rank.
Excellent build, good flight model. My own personal complaint (and many will disagree with me) is the unlimited fuel (boo, hiss!), especially given this is such a large heavy build you might have loaded the RL fuel quantity and the build would have never wanted for endurance. However, I appreciate the realism, or at least the trickiness with the takeoff procedure. The details are great, the build quality is good (though you should try using inlets to model control surfaces) and the overall aesthetic is great. Nice work, wish I could upvote this and I hope this takes you to platinum.
Overall, very good build. This one deserves an upvote solely for the way you built the cowling, which gives me hope for a good P-47 build here. The flight model is also pretty good, turn rate and performance is fairly close. The roll rate should be faster, IMHO, and the trim authority is lacking and the flap extension pitches the nose up waaaaayyyy too high (common SP error, perhaps I’ll post something about this trend). But it takes off and lands really well and flies nicely. Here’s a Spotlight, nice build!
+1@TrislandianAlliance, landing on speed should be accomplished on every type of landing, whether it’s in the boat or on a runway. On the boat, an on speed landing helps ensure you a. Don’t fall out of the sky prior to hitting the deck, b. That the hook engages a cable and c. The plane doesn’t break the wire on engagement. On land, landing on speed helps to ensure you a. Don’t fall out of the sky prior to hitting the ground, b. Land in the first 1/3 (or less) of the runway and c. Validates your landing data so that you don’t go rolling off the end of the runway while standing in the brakes. Every plane I’ve had the pleasure of flying has also had published evaluation standards which make sure pilots fly on speed on final—the U-2 has a 2 knot window of -0 to 2 knots fast for a no flap approach, the T-38 was something like -5 to 10 knots for a normal landing and the mighty Guppy stabilized approach criteria is only “momentary” deviations of -0 to 10 KIAS below 1000’ AFE. Seems tight, but when you use Autobrakes MAX on a 7,000 ft runway in gusty winds and your stopping distance is more than 6,500 ft, you’d best land on speed in the touchdown zone, otherwise you’re going to surprise all the pax in the back of the jet when you have to go around or while 4 wheeling off the end of the runway. So, yeah, regardless of the runway, land on speed.
+2Damper on the shocks of your custom gear and lots of it, whatever it takes 200%, 300% or 1700%. This reduces your landing gear’s “springiness” and resultant gear rebound. @brians1209 that’s not a solution that’s practical for every build. Many builds don’t have drag chutes, pilot technique varies greatly (especially here) and simply not landing fast doesn’t necessarily reduce bounce, and not even a hard touchdown guarantees a bounce. However, even for experienced pilots, the gear has to provide a moderate degree of shock absorption (or more, if landing on the boat), which requires higher damper values. Considering these factors and reading your advice, I would like to suggest you reassess your “very slow” landing speed and change your advice to “try and land ON speed”. If you’re consistently bouncing, you’re right, you’re probably landing fast.
+2Flies great, good weapons, interesting features, lots of FT carpentry went into this one. What I really want, though, is that Swedish version, exactly as depicted in the thumbnail, because that looks awesome!
+2Looks interesting, actually flies relatively well. Some things you might consider doing differently next time: more drag reduction and less power multiplier can help achieve the level flight performance you want while making sure it won’t accelerate going straight up and it needs a whole lot more nose up trim authority, because while high speed handling is pretty good, low speed handling is pretty tricky.
+1This is really pretty.
@mikoyanster yes, it would. But I doubt anyone in this community would have the patience to watch the whole thing. Doesn’t mean I shouldn't attempt it. I can record clips and post them on YouTube, as for the editing, what do you use to edit your vids and include the text boxes?
Well, this video brings up as many questions as answers for me. I have to pause the vid to read the text boxes, as they aren’t on screen long enough to really digest the information. My biggest questions on your technique are as follows: Why do you have a separate cruise engine that activates after takeoff? Why not just reduce your build’s drag? An alternative/additional method is to use FT to duplicate the ram air effect, adding a bit of thrust at higher speeds. You could also use a/the same FT formula to further reduce engine power at higher altitudes. Also, why only activate your afterburner above a certain speed? IRL, afterburners light up whenever the throttle is pushed up into the MAX detent(s), they are not speed dependent. Lastly, I use the fuselage parts, the fuel weight itself and then I might resort to using dead weight—the dead weight modifiable in every fuselage piece, not a part specifically placed to simulate deadweight—to balance out the build. I don’t typically add a block solely for deadweight and I never use a fuel tank, as most RL aircraft have fuel distributed around the aircraft (mostly in the central area of the fuse and the wings). Moving the fuel around the build allows one to use it for balance while also placing it approximately where it would be IRL. Your technique simplifies this so much it isn’t possible to realistically duplicate these things.
+2Great work, I wasn’t even aware of the Gloster racing floatplanes...beautiful machines.
+1Bruh!!!! This SOOOO Tite!!!!!! Yu r a MASTERRRR!!! This is litrally da ausommest lowrida seen on da syte!!! Better dan any plain!!!
+2Oh, yeah, next time try using screenshots instead of that awful orthographic projection, nice Felix insignia, BTW!