Well, this is quite the first build, for any builder. There are things you might have done differently, which comes with experience, but performance is reasonable (roll rate should be a tad faster, but that’s just nitpicking), takeoff and landing behavior is controllable...I could even land it on the boat, which is notoriously difficult in SP. I’m not a fan of the pilot figure, but, meh, personal choice and nothing wrong with that. Great build, welcome to the community!
Here’s another thing I’ve learned which may help: The published SP “Wing Area” in the stats adds up ALL the lifting surfaces, whereas RL numbers almost always just use the actual lifting surfaces. So when building, I always size the main wings to get the published RL area and loading. Only after that do I add the appropriate amount of horizontal and vertical stab in order to get the correct performance. Though I haven’t torn into your build, I suspect your “main wings” might have less than the 200 square feet of lifting surface (I subsequently analyzed your build’s lift and the main wings plus the structural wings were 251 sq ft and the main wings by themselves 186 sq ft, so your build probably has the lift of a Starfighter with flaps down or at least partially extended?)...perhaps the wings in the fuse and the main wings we can see are around 200 sq ft? That little bit of info really helps in building realistically behaving builds.
While I agree that replicating the “high lift” devices would be key to an accurate 104, to keep the takeoff and landing performance in the realm is the possible, not sure wings in the fuse would be the way I would go with that. I wish we could slap those things on a hinge and lower them to horizontal to produce lift, but that doesn’t seem to work well. However, I don’t know who’s running around recommending “body lift”, you’re the second builder who’s spoken about it. On the F-16/18/MiG-29, other aircraft of that shape and generation, it makes sense, but those are fairly specific shapes designed specifically for that characteristic. The 104 is a tube designed prior to the M2-F2 lifting body flights...no body lift there, at least nothing appreciable, it’s also not present on the T-38, 737, F-84/86, MiG-21, or most of the other aircraft of that era. Flying wings are an exception, their bodies and all wings!
It’s almost impossible to make a good Starfighter in this game due to the fact it relied heavily on high lift devices, such as the bleed air system and, well, the flaps themselves, which can’t be adequately duplicated in SP. However, this one does capture the lunatic speed associated with the 104, it actually turns well enough (like the real jet and unlike most others around here). I do like it and the semi cockpit is nice with a good cockpit view.
@BogdanX, you are correct in that, generally, most aircraft, especially older aircraft using cables and pulleys instead of hydraulics, do “fly” the control surface into equilibrium to achieve the trim effect. There’s a good discussion here, in the Smithsonian Institute’s Air & Space magazine article on the subject. But...not so fast! There are exceptions to most, if not all, things, and this is no exception, so to speak. There is something known as an “antiservo tab”, which looks a lot like a conventional trim tab, but it’s function and purpose is different than what a trim tab does. An antiservo tab actually prevents a control service from being moved too abruptly, helping to prevent pitch excursions which may result in a loss of control. These will generally move automatically with primary control input, i.e., pull back on the yoke, elevator/stabilator moves up and antiservo tab moves further up, helping to increase control loading and deaden the input to a degree. But that’s the vast exception to trim tabs, and, in fact, isn’t really a trim tab at all, more of an opposite trim tab, or “antiservo” tab and would not have a separate trim control, instead working automatically opposite to any yoke inputs. So, yes, I would agree with your assessment that the trim tab is probably opposite from how it would be arranged IRL and if it was meant to be an antiservo tab, it’s controls probably aren’t how they would be set up IRL. However, I blame myself; I test flew this build prior to release and never pointed it out. Control deflection wasn’t initially as great as it is now (increasing the throws was one of my recommendations to the catbaron), and the surface actually cleverly blends into the checkerboard paint scheme, so I totally missed it. My mistake. That’s what I think about the trim tabs on this build, though it’s a minor mistake, and I do like the rest of the build a good deal.
I have my doubts. I think you took away the idea that trim controls are reversed from my rant on mistakes even advanced builders make. My point was that, while the rule is that trimming down or back results in a nose up movement (and forward or up the opposite), there may be some exception that I am not aware of (e.g. Soviet aircraft with which I am less familiar.—I DO know, however, that many Soviet attitude indicators ARE reversed from Western symbology in that the presentation is better interpreted in a tail chase aspect, and that has screwed up some Western pilots who’ve had to adjust to the reversed symbology). I didn’t mean to say that Soviet aircraft had reversed trimming controls; in fact, I doubt that their controls are reversed from Western aircraft, though I cannot guarantee that is the case because I am not intimately familiar with all Soviet types. That’s all. My advice to you on this one is to find some sort of concrete evidence that the trim is reversed on the Tu-104, otherwise, incorporate it in the traditional, accepted manner. And I did a quick perusal on the Soviet anti torque pedals being reversed from Western types...I found nothing mentioning this in the quick 20 mins I looked around on the Net, though I did find an interesting 1983 paper written by NASA comparing Soviet and Western helicopters. As the U.S. has impressed several Soviet helos into service (most notably the Mi-8 in Afghanistan) and several transport types have been marketed by Russia for sale in the West with albeit less than stellar results (Sukhoi Superjet 100 being the notable example), I doubt something as fundamental as reversed anti torque pedals and trim switches would be an arcane fact that is not well known among the piloting community, much as the reversed attitude indicator presentation is fairly well known among people who’ve had little more than a casual interest in discovering such things. I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just issuing a challenge to show me where it says anything to that effect. And you’re right, I’ll probably hate the reversed controls regardless.
Wow, this truly is your most impressive work, at least as of late...well conceptualized and well executed. It flies beautifully. Did I tell you I am enamored of the Art Deco period? This airship is the perfect embodiment of that aesthetic.
Very interesting build, I'm saving as a favorite due to its use of FT, of which there is a lot. It has 7,700 drag points, which is an enormous amount, but it doesn't like to slow down at all. The fly by wire is interesting. Low part count makes it good for MP, like you say. I also like the simplicity of weaponry. Reminds me a lot of my own F-20 build, but with a straighter wing.
An interesting build, a fairly good flight model, precise construction, interesting features, some advanced Funky Tree-ing. It’s fun to fly, which is great. A word of advice...a high part count isn’t something to necessarily brag about. Use as many parts as required, but don’t just build and add parts for count. Anyway, it would be great to see you apply your skills to a replica build. It’s fairly easy to rationalize a short cut or simplification on a fictional build, but a replica forces one to duplicate a feature correctly or to find a good workaround. Nice work.
I hear you, I’ve been working on a repaint and rebuild of an old Benotto road bicycle, so SP has been on and off for awhile. A project car, especially an older Merc sounds a lot more involved than anything I’m working on. But, there are a lot of new improvements besides drag reduction; Funky Trees being the most notable. Plus, it makes sequenced landing gear and doors possible without the crazy free rotators and shock setup you used to use. I must ask, though, why use those mods? Makes it a bit more difficult for the casual user or those who’d prefer to avoid downloading a bunch of mods...
Very nice rendition of a rare subject. You even got the solid axle rear suspension correct. I like the handling, the body rolls, but it doesn’t spin out at the drop of a hat, though it probably handles and accelerates better than the RL car. Nice work.
Cool, next time you can try using intakes for your flaps and control surfaces as they produce better, sharper trailing edges with the added benefit of being able to angle them as required to follow the correct outline.
It’s basically a programming language that you can use to take different inputs from the game (true airspeed, altitude, etc.) and modify the actions of your rotators. Say, you want to modify your horizontal stabilizer rotators to limit movement a certain amount as your Gs increase, you can put the expression into the “input” field which says something such as: “1/VerticalG”, so that as your G increases, your input to the horizontal stab becomes less. It really gives the builder a huge amount of flexibility to create builds which emulate different RL functions.
I have to commend your approach to this. I never commented on your original post, though I whole heartily agree that ortho view looks terrible and I would never, ever use it for any post. However, you didn’t simply dismiss those who disagreed with you and I, you went out and built a solution, though it is a complex one, for those people who had valid concerns and who actually liked the ortho view. The hope, of course, is that the SP2 Devs will see this and incorporate an improved/better FOV for posts. Class act, really, bravo.
Nice build but for a single thing: Why is the trim reversed? The trim switch operates exactly like a stick, yoke or control column: push forward (slider up), trees gets bigger, pull back (slider down), trees get smaller.
The subject matter alone requires an upvote from me. Very, very, rare build here. I’ve posted a couple of these, though my efforts were long ago and prior to my truly knowing what I was doing.
If you move the rear landing gear forward so that it’s just slightly behind the CoM line (red line), it should actually rotate and take off at close to the correct speed (under 200 KIAS).
Would have been a bit faster than the RL jet, but good use of a funky trees activated speedbrake to limit the top speed. Turns fairly rapidly as well, the missiles are quite good and it’s fun to fly.
Great build, very true to life, though I’ve never actually flown a Lightning! Flies like everything I’ve read, so upvote from me and it’s on my favorites (or is it “favourites”???) list!
People are always saying stupid things, such as: "Best Canberra on site!"...how do they really know? Have they seen them all, have they even done a cursory check? Probably not, so I don't take much stock in those comments. However, this one is just beautiful...if it's not the best Canberra on site, it's certainly one of my "favourites" and certainly your best work that I can remember. Everything is integrated well, the shape is spot on, the camo job just blows me away with how good it looks--you've always been good at that details are fantastic and the flight model is great. Very engaging, it flies like a larger jet with a lower wing loading, one has to anticipate roll ins and roll outs. Great work, I'm impressed.
Alas, @TOXICJohnny, like the F-5N from which it’s derived and with which it shares its mission of adversary training, it’s not a shipboard fighter. I didn’t include a catapult attachment, though I am sure you could add one quite easily.
Nice simple build. Doesn’t like to fly slow, which makes landing on the boat really challenging. Too bad we don’t have a practical way to do high lift devices like IRL.
Well, as you say, the base game now incorporates Funky Trees, as well as the ability to change the inputs via the in game Overload tool, so we can do those things already. Or are you talking about including these things in the basic menus for the stock surfaces?
@asteroidbook345 take the wings apart and figure it out, it’s called the triangle technique and it’s the only way to make nice tapering thickness wings. It requires patience and finesse, carefully angling the tapering triangle to align with other parts. I use the same techniques as Bog.
Well, it’s not exactly a beautiful jet...more like if someone told Pavlev Sukhoi, “Comrade! Take the most beautiful aircraft ever flown, the XB-70 Valkyrie of the Capitalist Empire of the United States of Amerika, and make it brutally simple!” This is a good rendition...a few critiques that some, such as everything @BogdanX, said already, but mostly minor things with the build itself. Flying wise, I’m glad you went with realistic, though a little more drag reduction would have helped things. Boy, it lands fast and it wants to float! Speedbrakes activated by “GearDown” would help with the realism there a little. But it flies plausibly well. But why did you reverse the trim?!?! In RL, pushing up or forward on the trim switch or trim wheel gives you nose down trim, not nose up! But overall, nice build.
@OrangeConnor well, the really long and detailed description is partially intentional. The abbreviated flight manual, called the “Dash-1” for the RL F-20A (available for sale online) is around 340 pages. Which, believe it or not, is fairly short as far as flight manuals go. Pilots are expected to know a great deal about the aircraft they fly and recall the information almost reflexively. I remember my first USAF flying course, flight screening in the mighty T-41 Mescalero (militarized Cessna 172 trainer) and the hours and hours of study, quizzing and bookwork associated with learning to fly that simple airplane. The first part of every Air Force flight training day typically begins with “stand up”, where the students are quizzed and then given a hypothetical emergency scenario they must correctly solve from memory, on their own, all while standing in front of their peers. All my builds attempt to convey some aspect of the piloting experience, from how they fly, to making the player remember their fuel state or pay the consequence (I never, ever use unlimited fuel), or remembering some detail regarding the plane’s flight characteristics that will keep them “alive”, etc. That’s partially why I do things this way, thanks for commenting.
I don’t hate realistic flight models. The RL jet never got that high or that fast, you could rationalize using the projected flight performance of the realized jet, but if you make this thing a Mach 5 jet that pulls 11 Gs and rolls at 720 degrees per second, I’ll hate that.
The autoroll is very minor on this one. Would suggest you also add trim...a plane without trim is really annoying to fly if one has to constantly hold back stick to make it fly correctly.
@Viper28 gives only part of the answer. The root cause of “autoroll” may be a miscalculated drag model...which isn’t miscalculated at all, but simply caused by asymmetry in your build. I bet you used the mirror tool when constructing your build, did you not? The mirroring tool is to blame. When SP mirrors a part, it just spawns a part on the opposite side of your build and that part will attach itself to the closest attach points and not necessarily the attach points which are symmetric from the original side. Additionally, mirroring parts which are not the outside most parts (I.e., the last part added to a build), will frequently spawn extra parts...they’re not easy to find, but if you ever try and remove a part and suddenly you have two of them, the removed part with the original one still at the original location, you’ve found a duplicate part. The best solution for an almost completed build like yours is to disconnect each part and reattach manually to ensure all the connect points match symmetrically on each side. A simpler work around is to add a little weight on the opposite side of the autoroll in order to balance out the build...it kinda works, but it’s not a perfect solution. Avoiding the problem in the first place is really the cleanest way to prevent this, but requires a methodical approach to building. Whenever I mirror a part, I detach the original part first using the attach tool in Designer Suite, move it away from the desired location a set number of nudges (I tend to use 8 or 12 nudges), mirror that one part only, then manually reattach both parts to the correct, symmetrical attach points and nudge both parts back into position. It’s a pain and time consuming, but worth is so as to prevent autoroll.
@Redstar45 understand, you’re just starting you SP adventures...you can customize engine power and drag through the in game mods included now since V1.9.200. Be sure to enable both FineTuner and Overload under the “Mods” menu. If you would like some help I can do so.
Nice work here. Good details, well thought out, flies nice with realistic performance. The only critiques I would offer would be that the roll rate is a tad on the slow side, I would have had it roll about 25% faster to match its pitch rate for harmonization of controls, as well as the roll rate of similar aircraft. Additionally, while pleasingly smooth to fly—I mean, this thing is like butter smooth—perhaps it’s a bit too smooth. Nice build overall.
Nice Starfighter. Simple, yet engaging. Tricky to fly, like the real beast. Not quite as fast as the real thing, you might lower the drag even more than it is now, believe it or not. But, for such a simple build, you have all the essentials, low drag, high speed, good but not great turn performance, tricky landings (I crashed my first attempt!). All SP Starfighters should be this good, nice work!
I’ve been flying this thing around yesterday and today because I wanted to give it a good review. Overall, this is very entertaining, which is the best you can say for an SP build. If you think about it, the idea is ludicrous. An airplane like this, at 35,000 lbs would stop midair if you fired a 280 mm cannon...even if “recoiless”. The largest cannon employed is the 105 mm onboard the AC-130, which fires sideways, has a sophisticated recoil system and the Herc is about 4 1/2 times as heavy and powerful as your build. However, simply the idea of putting holes in the ships in game kept me at it, trying to master it enough until I could do so. Also, it was a brave decision to go with the constant speed prop thing, connected through the throttle. I doubt many players appreciate that, though to make it truly lifelike the way it’s setup (with max “thrust” at 70% instead of closer to 100%) it probably should incorporate both throttle and pitch controls. The Lorenz beam system is interesting, though not very practical as set up...any approach guidance system needs to be right in front of the pilot, or at least a repeater in front of the pilot. I suppose the nav might give a PAR to the pilot on approach, but, unfortunately, that’s impossible in SP. I like the idea, though. The build quality is appropriate; there aren’t any jarring misconnects with it, all parts, interior, exterior, wing technique, etc., is at the same quality. You also don’t the stupid “unlimited fuel” thing...nice move. Though not the most accomplished build out there, I’d definitely call it “above average”. The flight model is decent, it’s appropriately fast and maneuvers about as well as a Ju-288 would have, though I question if lugging around a 40,000 lb (more than total aircraft weight, BTW!) artillery piece wouldn’t have put more of a crimp in the performance. Perhaps the piece was might lighter because a recoiless rifle is more of a bazooka than a true cannon. The two biggest areas for improvement would be the lack of trim and to move that stupid cockpit rail right in the aiming sight line...I flew this on an iPhone, so it might not have that exact same view on PC or Android. But the lack of trim...that did the most to detract from the experience as I just had to constantly hold back stick to takeoff, fly around, aim (very painful) and land. If I had just one recommendation for your next build, it would be to PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE put trim in it! But, overall, fun build.
Your build possesses that quality which makes a SP build great...it's extremely engaging. The maneuverability is extremely plausible and the performance is in the ballpark...is it a bit fast at all altitudes? Perhaps, but it's also powered by four enormous props in a high speed airframe which isn't huge, all of which makes for a speedy aircraft. Also, it should be noted, prop aircraft are flown at long ranges with the power back, which slows this down quite a bit, in reality max speeds are flown at bursts, with high cruise speeds being more desired for something like this than sheer max speed. I read the test pilot's...Count Baron von Luderdorff's test report on this thing, and he says..."der flugzeug hass quite ze long takeoff roll, due to the uniqe landing gear arrangement...if one was to redesign this lovely beast, perhaps a lowzer rotation velocity vould be in orzder, but it flies like a shmetterling vonce airborne!", Again, great work, love it.
@MrAir420 I used the following Funky Trees formula for the horizontal stabilizer input: “clamp((clamp((Pitch+Trim/1)+(GearDown/8),-1,1)(1-clamp01(floor(TAS/335))0.33)),-1,1)”. The part of the equation which limits the movement is the “clamp01(floor(TAS/335))*0.33))” in which the movement is only limited when the result of TAS/335 is a positive value by the “clamp01”, that is, when the aircraft True Airspeed exceeds 335 m/s. Then, the rotator is then limited to 2/3 it’s total movement when the aircraft speed exceeds 335 m/s. The transonic maneuverability transition a bit abrupt and if I were to do it again, I might attempt to make a smoothly decreasing pitch rate, but it does the job. Thanks for asking and if you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to ask.
Well, this is quite the first build, for any builder. There are things you might have done differently, which comes with experience, but performance is reasonable (roll rate should be a tad faster, but that’s just nitpicking), takeoff and landing behavior is controllable...I could even land it on the boat, which is notoriously difficult in SP. I’m not a fan of the pilot figure, but, meh, personal choice and nothing wrong with that. Great build, welcome to the community!
+2Here’s another thing I’ve learned which may help: The published SP “Wing Area” in the stats adds up ALL the lifting surfaces, whereas RL numbers almost always just use the actual lifting surfaces. So when building, I always size the main wings to get the published RL area and loading. Only after that do I add the appropriate amount of horizontal and vertical stab in order to get the correct performance. Though I haven’t torn into your build, I suspect your “main wings” might have less than the 200 square feet of lifting surface (I subsequently analyzed your build’s lift and the main wings plus the structural wings were 251 sq ft and the main wings by themselves 186 sq ft, so your build probably has the lift of a Starfighter with flaps down or at least partially extended?)...perhaps the wings in the fuse and the main wings we can see are around 200 sq ft? That little bit of info really helps in building realistically behaving builds.
+1While I agree that replicating the “high lift” devices would be key to an accurate 104, to keep the takeoff and landing performance in the realm is the possible, not sure wings in the fuse would be the way I would go with that. I wish we could slap those things on a hinge and lower them to horizontal to produce lift, but that doesn’t seem to work well. However, I don’t know who’s running around recommending “body lift”, you’re the second builder who’s spoken about it. On the F-16/18/MiG-29, other aircraft of that shape and generation, it makes sense, but those are fairly specific shapes designed specifically for that characteristic. The 104 is a tube designed prior to the M2-F2 lifting body flights...no body lift there, at least nothing appreciable, it’s also not present on the T-38, 737, F-84/86, MiG-21, or most of the other aircraft of that era. Flying wings are an exception, their bodies and all wings!
+1It’s almost impossible to make a good Starfighter in this game due to the fact it relied heavily on high lift devices, such as the bleed air system and, well, the flaps themselves, which can’t be adequately duplicated in SP. However, this one does capture the lunatic speed associated with the 104, it actually turns well enough (like the real jet and unlike most others around here). I do like it and the semi cockpit is nice with a good cockpit view.
+2@BogdanX, you are correct in that, generally, most aircraft, especially older aircraft using cables and pulleys instead of hydraulics, do “fly” the control surface into equilibrium to achieve the trim effect. There’s a good discussion here, in the Smithsonian Institute’s Air & Space magazine article on the subject. But...not so fast! There are exceptions to most, if not all, things, and this is no exception, so to speak. There is something known as an “antiservo tab”, which looks a lot like a conventional trim tab, but it’s function and purpose is different than what a trim tab does. An antiservo tab actually prevents a control service from being moved too abruptly, helping to prevent pitch excursions which may result in a loss of control. These will generally move automatically with primary control input, i.e., pull back on the yoke, elevator/stabilator moves up and antiservo tab moves further up, helping to increase control loading and deaden the input to a degree. But that’s the vast exception to trim tabs, and, in fact, isn’t really a trim tab at all, more of an opposite trim tab, or “antiservo” tab and would not have a separate trim control, instead working automatically opposite to any yoke inputs. So, yes, I would agree with your assessment that the trim tab is probably opposite from how it would be arranged IRL and if it was meant to be an antiservo tab, it’s controls probably aren’t how they would be set up IRL. However, I blame myself; I test flew this build prior to release and never pointed it out. Control deflection wasn’t initially as great as it is now (increasing the throws was one of my recommendations to the catbaron), and the surface actually cleverly blends into the checkerboard paint scheme, so I totally missed it. My mistake. That’s what I think about the trim tabs on this build, though it’s a minor mistake, and I do like the rest of the build a good deal.
I have my doubts. I think you took away the idea that trim controls are reversed from my rant on mistakes even advanced builders make. My point was that, while the rule is that trimming down or back results in a nose up movement (and forward or up the opposite), there may be some exception that I am not aware of (e.g. Soviet aircraft with which I am less familiar.—I DO know, however, that many Soviet attitude indicators ARE reversed from Western symbology in that the presentation is better interpreted in a tail chase aspect, and that has screwed up some Western pilots who’ve had to adjust to the reversed symbology). I didn’t mean to say that Soviet aircraft had reversed trimming controls; in fact, I doubt that their controls are reversed from Western aircraft, though I cannot guarantee that is the case because I am not intimately familiar with all Soviet types. That’s all. My advice to you on this one is to find some sort of concrete evidence that the trim is reversed on the Tu-104, otherwise, incorporate it in the traditional, accepted manner. And I did a quick perusal on the Soviet anti torque pedals being reversed from Western types...I found nothing mentioning this in the quick 20 mins I looked around on the Net, though I did find an interesting 1983 paper written by NASA comparing Soviet and Western helicopters. As the U.S. has impressed several Soviet helos into service (most notably the Mi-8 in Afghanistan) and several transport types have been marketed by Russia for sale in the West with albeit less than stellar results (Sukhoi Superjet 100 being the notable example), I doubt something as fundamental as reversed anti torque pedals and trim switches would be an arcane fact that is not well known among the piloting community, much as the reversed attitude indicator presentation is fairly well known among people who’ve had little more than a casual interest in discovering such things. I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just issuing a challenge to show me where it says anything to that effect. And you’re right, I’ll probably hate the reversed controls regardless.
@asteroidbook345 it is? On all Soviet aircraft? And the rudder pedals are reversed on all Soviet helos? Where did you find that tidbit?
Wow, this truly is your most impressive work, at least as of late...well conceptualized and well executed. It flies beautifully. Did I tell you I am enamored of the Art Deco period? This airship is the perfect embodiment of that aesthetic.
+1You want lore? Here’s a sample of my writing—the story is the description. Let me know if I can help.
I remember seeing this one a long time ago! I’m glad to see it posted finally!
Very interesting build, I'm saving as a favorite due to its use of FT, of which there is a lot. It has 7,700 drag points, which is an enormous amount, but it doesn't like to slow down at all. The fly by wire is interesting. Low part count makes it good for MP, like you say. I also like the simplicity of weaponry. Reminds me a lot of my own F-20 build, but with a straighter wing.
+3Did you mean to say "Funky Trees" or "Junky Trees"...? ; )
+1An interesting build, a fairly good flight model, precise construction, interesting features, some advanced Funky Tree-ing. It’s fun to fly, which is great. A word of advice...a high part count isn’t something to necessarily brag about. Use as many parts as required, but don’t just build and add parts for count. Anyway, it would be great to see you apply your skills to a replica build. It’s fairly easy to rationalize a short cut or simplification on a fictional build, but a replica forces one to duplicate a feature correctly or to find a good workaround. Nice work.
Nice!
за Родину!
Isn’t that the hot rod Mercedes? Or was there an AMG version of that car? What motor does is have?
I hear you, I’ve been working on a repaint and rebuild of an old Benotto road bicycle, so SP has been on and off for awhile. A project car, especially an older Merc sounds a lot more involved than anything I’m working on. But, there are a lot of new improvements besides drag reduction; Funky Trees being the most notable. Plus, it makes sequenced landing gear and doors possible without the crazy free rotators and shock setup you used to use. I must ask, though, why use those mods? Makes it a bit more difficult for the casual user or those who’d prefer to avoid downloading a bunch of mods...
Looks like a B-36 with the engines flipped.
+2Von Hubert...? Is that you?!? It is you, it IS you!!!
+1Very nice rendition of a rare subject. You even got the solid axle rear suspension correct. I like the handling, the body rolls, but it doesn’t spin out at the drop of a hat, though it probably handles and accelerates better than the RL car. Nice work.
Cool, next time you can try using intakes for your flaps and control surfaces as they produce better, sharper trailing edges with the added benefit of being able to angle them as required to follow the correct outline.
+1It’s basically a programming language that you can use to take different inputs from the game (true airspeed, altitude, etc.) and modify the actions of your rotators. Say, you want to modify your horizontal stabilizer rotators to limit movement a certain amount as your Gs increase, you can put the expression into the “input” field which says something such as: “1/VerticalG”, so that as your G increases, your input to the horizontal stab becomes less. It really gives the builder a huge amount of flexibility to create builds which emulate different RL functions.
+1I have to commend your approach to this. I never commented on your original post, though I whole heartily agree that ortho view looks terrible and I would never, ever use it for any post. However, you didn’t simply dismiss those who disagreed with you and I, you went out and built a solution, though it is a complex one, for those people who had valid concerns and who actually liked the ortho view. The hope, of course, is that the SP2 Devs will see this and incorporate an improved/better FOV for posts. Class act, really, bravo.
+2Nice build but for a single thing: Why is the trim reversed? The trim switch operates exactly like a stick, yoke or control column: push forward (slider up), trees gets bigger, pull back (slider down), trees get smaller.
The subject matter alone requires an upvote from me. Very, very, rare build here. I’ve posted a couple of these, though my efforts were long ago and prior to my truly knowing what I was doing.
If you move the rear landing gear forward so that it’s just slightly behind the CoM line (red line), it should actually rotate and take off at close to the correct speed (under 200 KIAS).
Would have been a bit faster than the RL jet, but good use of a funky trees activated speedbrake to limit the top speed. Turns fairly rapidly as well, the missiles are quite good and it’s fun to fly.
+1Great build, very true to life, though I’ve never actually flown a Lightning! Flies like everything I’ve read, so upvote from me and it’s on my favorites (or is it “favourites”???) list!
+1People are always saying stupid things, such as: "Best Canberra on site!"...how do they really know? Have they seen them all, have they even done a cursory check? Probably not, so I don't take much stock in those comments. However, this one is just beautiful...if it's not the best Canberra on site, it's certainly one of my "favourites" and certainly your best work that I can remember. Everything is integrated well, the shape is spot on, the camo job just blows me away with how good it looks--you've always been good at that details are fantastic and the flight model is great. Very engaging, it flies like a larger jet with a lower wing loading, one has to anticipate roll ins and roll outs. Great work, I'm impressed.
Alas, @TOXICJohnny, like the F-5N from which it’s derived and with which it shares its mission of adversary training, it’s not a shipboard fighter. I didn’t include a catapult attachment, though I am sure you could add one quite easily.
Geez, did anyone have a successful mission?
I really like the FT formula you used for the flaps, BTW...inverselerp...?! Good use of a little used input.
Nice simple build. Doesn’t like to fly slow, which makes landing on the boat really challenging. Too bad we don’t have a practical way to do high lift devices like IRL.
Well, as you say, the base game now incorporates Funky Trees, as well as the ability to change the inputs via the in game Overload tool, so we can do those things already. Or are you talking about including these things in the basic menus for the stock surfaces?
+1@asteroidbook345 take the wings apart and figure it out, it’s called the triangle technique and it’s the only way to make nice tapering thickness wings. It requires patience and finesse, carefully angling the tapering triangle to align with other parts. I use the same techniques as Bog.
Well, it’s not exactly a beautiful jet...more like if someone told Pavlev Sukhoi, “Comrade! Take the most beautiful aircraft ever flown, the XB-70 Valkyrie of the Capitalist Empire of the United States of Amerika, and make it brutally simple!” This is a good rendition...a few critiques that some, such as everything @BogdanX, said already, but mostly minor things with the build itself. Flying wise, I’m glad you went with realistic, though a little more drag reduction would have helped things. Boy, it lands fast and it wants to float! Speedbrakes activated by “GearDown” would help with the realism there a little. But it flies plausibly well. But why did you reverse the trim?!?! In RL, pushing up or forward on the trim switch or trim wheel gives you nose down trim, not nose up! But overall, nice build.
First attempt!
@OrangeConnor well, the really long and detailed description is partially intentional. The abbreviated flight manual, called the “Dash-1” for the RL F-20A (available for sale online) is around 340 pages. Which, believe it or not, is fairly short as far as flight manuals go. Pilots are expected to know a great deal about the aircraft they fly and recall the information almost reflexively. I remember my first USAF flying course, flight screening in the mighty T-41 Mescalero (militarized Cessna 172 trainer) and the hours and hours of study, quizzing and bookwork associated with learning to fly that simple airplane. The first part of every Air Force flight training day typically begins with “stand up”, where the students are quizzed and then given a hypothetical emergency scenario they must correctly solve from memory, on their own, all while standing in front of their peers. All my builds attempt to convey some aspect of the piloting experience, from how they fly, to making the player remember their fuel state or pay the consequence (I never, ever use unlimited fuel), or remembering some detail regarding the plane’s flight characteristics that will keep them “alive”, etc. That’s partially why I do things this way, thanks for commenting.
+1I don’t hate realistic flight models. The RL jet never got that high or that fast, you could rationalize using the projected flight performance of the realized jet, but if you make this thing a Mach 5 jet that pulls 11 Gs and rolls at 720 degrees per second, I’ll hate that.
The autoroll is very minor on this one. Would suggest you also add trim...a plane without trim is really annoying to fly if one has to constantly hold back stick to make it fly correctly.
+3@Viper28 gives only part of the answer. The root cause of “autoroll” may be a miscalculated drag model...which isn’t miscalculated at all, but simply caused by asymmetry in your build. I bet you used the mirror tool when constructing your build, did you not? The mirroring tool is to blame. When SP mirrors a part, it just spawns a part on the opposite side of your build and that part will attach itself to the closest attach points and not necessarily the attach points which are symmetric from the original side. Additionally, mirroring parts which are not the outside most parts (I.e., the last part added to a build), will frequently spawn extra parts...they’re not easy to find, but if you ever try and remove a part and suddenly you have two of them, the removed part with the original one still at the original location, you’ve found a duplicate part. The best solution for an almost completed build like yours is to disconnect each part and reattach manually to ensure all the connect points match symmetrically on each side. A simpler work around is to add a little weight on the opposite side of the autoroll in order to balance out the build...it kinda works, but it’s not a perfect solution. Avoiding the problem in the first place is really the cleanest way to prevent this, but requires a methodical approach to building. Whenever I mirror a part, I detach the original part first using the attach tool in Designer Suite, move it away from the desired location a set number of nudges (I tend to use 8 or 12 nudges), mirror that one part only, then manually reattach both parts to the correct, symmetrical attach points and nudge both parts back into position. It’s a pain and time consuming, but worth is so as to prevent autoroll.
+1Beautiful build.
@Redstar45 understand, you’re just starting you SP adventures...you can customize engine power and drag through the in game mods included now since V1.9.200. Be sure to enable both FineTuner and Overload under the “Mods” menu. If you would like some help I can do so.
Simple Flagon, I like it. Nice custom missiles. A little bit quick on acceleration and it flies too fast, but otherwise it flies well.
Nice work here. Good details, well thought out, flies nice with realistic performance. The only critiques I would offer would be that the roll rate is a tad on the slow side, I would have had it roll about 25% faster to match its pitch rate for harmonization of controls, as well as the roll rate of similar aircraft. Additionally, while pleasingly smooth to fly—I mean, this thing is like butter smooth—perhaps it’s a bit too smooth. Nice build overall.
Nice Starfighter. Simple, yet engaging. Tricky to fly, like the real beast. Not quite as fast as the real thing, you might lower the drag even more than it is now, believe it or not. But, for such a simple build, you have all the essentials, low drag, high speed, good but not great turn performance, tricky landings (I crashed my first attempt!). All SP Starfighters should be this good, nice work!
I’ve been flying this thing around yesterday and today because I wanted to give it a good review. Overall, this is very entertaining, which is the best you can say for an SP build. If you think about it, the idea is ludicrous. An airplane like this, at 35,000 lbs would stop midair if you fired a 280 mm cannon...even if “recoiless”. The largest cannon employed is the 105 mm onboard the AC-130, which fires sideways, has a sophisticated recoil system and the Herc is about 4 1/2 times as heavy and powerful as your build. However, simply the idea of putting holes in the ships in game kept me at it, trying to master it enough until I could do so. Also, it was a brave decision to go with the constant speed prop thing, connected through the throttle. I doubt many players appreciate that, though to make it truly lifelike the way it’s setup (with max “thrust” at 70% instead of closer to 100%) it probably should incorporate both throttle and pitch controls. The Lorenz beam system is interesting, though not very practical as set up...any approach guidance system needs to be right in front of the pilot, or at least a repeater in front of the pilot. I suppose the nav might give a PAR to the pilot on approach, but, unfortunately, that’s impossible in SP. I like the idea, though. The build quality is appropriate; there aren’t any jarring misconnects with it, all parts, interior, exterior, wing technique, etc., is at the same quality. You also don’t the stupid “unlimited fuel” thing...nice move. Though not the most accomplished build out there, I’d definitely call it “above average”. The flight model is decent, it’s appropriately fast and maneuvers about as well as a Ju-288 would have, though I question if lugging around a 40,000 lb (more than total aircraft weight, BTW!) artillery piece wouldn’t have put more of a crimp in the performance. Perhaps the piece was might lighter because a recoiless rifle is more of a bazooka than a true cannon. The two biggest areas for improvement would be the lack of trim and to move that stupid cockpit rail right in the aiming sight line...I flew this on an iPhone, so it might not have that exact same view on PC or Android. But the lack of trim...that did the most to detract from the experience as I just had to constantly hold back stick to takeoff, fly around, aim (very painful) and land. If I had just one recommendation for your next build, it would be to PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE put trim in it! But, overall, fun build.
It is a gloriously ugly cannon armed fighter, and I can appreciate that.
Your build possesses that quality which makes a SP build great...it's extremely engaging. The maneuverability is extremely plausible and the performance is in the ballpark...is it a bit fast at all altitudes? Perhaps, but it's also powered by four enormous props in a high speed airframe which isn't huge, all of which makes for a speedy aircraft. Also, it should be noted, prop aircraft are flown at long ranges with the power back, which slows this down quite a bit, in reality max speeds are flown at bursts, with high cruise speeds being more desired for something like this than sheer max speed. I read the test pilot's...Count Baron von Luderdorff's test report on this thing, and he says..."der flugzeug hass quite ze long takeoff roll, due to the uniqe landing gear arrangement...if one was to redesign this lovely beast, perhaps a lowzer rotation velocity vould be in orzder, but it flies like a shmetterling vonce airborne!", Again, great work, love it.
@MrAir420 I used the following Funky Trees formula for the horizontal stabilizer input: “clamp((clamp((Pitch+Trim/1)+(GearDown/8),-1,1)(1-clamp01(floor(TAS/335))0.33)),-1,1)”. The part of the equation which limits the movement is the “clamp01(floor(TAS/335))*0.33))” in which the movement is only limited when the result of TAS/335 is a positive value by the “clamp01”, that is, when the aircraft True Airspeed exceeds 335 m/s. Then, the rotator is then limited to 2/3 it’s total movement when the aircraft speed exceeds 335 m/s. The transonic maneuverability transition a bit abrupt and if I were to do it again, I might attempt to make a smoothly decreasing pitch rate, but it does the job. Thanks for asking and if you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to ask.
+1