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.
Wow @Leehopard, I realize that people seem to absolutely love this build. It’s a bit surprising to me as I always thought the 105 had more personality. But, thanks!
What’s ironic was that the F-20, which in itself was really an improved F-5E, was powered by the same engine as the twin engine F-18, the GE F404 turbofan.
@Freerider2142 no, he’s correct, the F-17, which eventually became the F-18, was a direct descendent of the F-5E, but vastly improved and more sophisticated.
@F104Deathtrap you noticed the little drop tank surprise I put in there...guess you’re going to have to report to the squadron commander and answer to why you over-Gd the drop tank! Also, yes, the aileron reversal is intentional and due to the symmetric wing...I suggest the pull, unload, roll, pull method, or use the rudder to roll it at high AoA. Anyway, I’m very pleased that someone took the time to notice all its little foibles and I’m glad you enjoyed it!
I must say, beautiful jet, really fun to fly, highly plausible for a fictional build. The stopping distance isn’t ridiculously short, though I would never use Bandit as a measure of stopping distance for a 1960s hot rod like this one. The T-38 min allowed runway length is 8,000’, which is about the actual runway distance of Murphy Airport (not including the lead in arrow portion of the runway). If you have a drag chute, that helps a lot with stopping distance as well. But relatively small brakes on small, high pressure tires (and prior to the advent of anti lock brakes on aircraft) does not equal short stopping distances. But your jet flies great and I really enjoyed it.
@Freerider2142 well, like the F-5, it’s not carrier compatible...really. I can land it on deck and catch the wire with the emergency hook, but I didn’t put the catapult attachment on it. It’s strictly an adversary simulator for training Navy fighter crews on how to engage smaller, fast and more maneuverable adversary aircraft. Glad you like it otherwise and stay tuned for one of my upcoming aircraft, which may very well be a full up carrier jet.
Hmmm...you should take a few minutes to read my USAF insignia post. The national insignia (stars and bars) only goes on the top of the left wing and the bottom of the right wing.
@hRmm I'm sorry, really I am. I have no idea why you are having problems with this. No one else here has had any problems with this. If you're on PC or mobile, you can open in the build screen and try reattaching the missiles. I really don't know what else to tell you.
@hRmm well that’s frustrating as no one else seems to be having that problem...recommend you download again as you might have a glitched or corrupted copy. I’ve been downloading from the site every time you comment to make sure the version you’re using is the same version I’m using and it’s working just fine for me. Also, have you downloaded SP V1.9.205 yet or are you using an earlier version or the Beta?
The Lorenz Beam system is what we used in the U.S. through the 1950s, at least, until replaced in large part by NDBs, VORs and, eventually, the ILS. Great research and good idea, can’t wait to see the final result.
@Oxidiz3 wow, you picked an oldie to upvote. This one is certainly simple and I liked it, though building it on my old iPhone 5 was a bit of a chore. It isn’t 1:1, because I couldn’t resize the engines as there wasn’t Fine Tuner available for iOS and I wanted to keep it proportional. It also came before drag reduction, so the performance isn’t what it should be, though it is fun and simple to fly around.
@hRmm I must assume you didn’t pick it up in the flight manual or that it wasn’t clear from the instructions...you have to go to “Air-To-Air”, then select AG4 to arm the missiles. This allows you to arm the guns without having to listen to the missile acquisition tones. Selecting air to air without selecting AG4 will display “0x AIM-9L”. Subsequently selecting AG4 will the display “2x AIM-9L”. Or are you firing one and then zero displays?
Flies well, stable and fast, appropriate turn rate (I haven’t put my G meter on it yet, but it seems properly British), acceleration is very good, like the RL jet (so I’m told). Simple, not overly complex, like jets of that era. Nice build.
@listeed that’s probably what it is, this build requires the .205, try it after you download the update, if you still have problems after that, please let me know.
AKA Gloster Javelin...nice flight model, very appropriate, not overpowered, gives it very realistic acceleration and flight performance. Cannon effects are very cool, though it’s actually impossible to hit anything with them, I really like using those normally air to ground missiles in the air to air mode. Nice work!
@Tang0five what? Really? If you really can't download it (it's a v1.9.205 build, BTW), I can try to post another unlisted and you can try and download from there. Please let me know.
Plus, this is an F-16, which everyone loves, but there are a lot of F-16s out there on the site. Plus, it's grey, which also conspires against upvotes.
@ChisP the fact of the matter is that if you have more followers, you get more upvotes, whether your build is actually any good or not. The good thing is that the more good builds you make, the more followers you will get, and so on and so on. Look at BogdanX, he builds some great aircraft consistently and has a ton of followers for it, but it took awhile for him to get there...we discuss this all the time in my Discord group and can't believe the disparity sometimes. Screenshots, working cockpits and the fact that many upvote based purely on the post, without actually flying the build, all conspire to keep good builders down. But shoddy builders very rarely rise to Bog's level. If you stick with it...and you only have 5,500 pts., you'll develop even more skills and gain more followers and get more points, on and on. It just takes time, it really does. I myself only have two builds that have broken 100 upvotes, the F-100 and the EF132. Some builds that weren't that hard (USAF Insignia Pack) got far more points than other builds I thought were much, much better. There's no rhyme or reason sometimes, but your long term reputation is really based on the quality of your builds as opposed to just one ultra successful build or a lot of crap builds. You're going in the correct direction and, again, 88 upvotes isn't bad, not at all. My F-105 only has 88 upvotes and I have far, far more followers, so you're not doing badly at all at this stage!
@BroAeronautics it is too bad, the F-20 was a logical advancement of the F-5 and developed with very little fuss within Northrop itself, not in response to a contract competition. As a result, NGA, to this day, approaches working with the government very differently than they did before the F-20, due to the drubbing they took as a result of not being able to sell any of these jets.
@TheKraken3 Actually, it’s an F-20. It’s done, I’m just waiting until V1.9.203 officially drops to release it to make sure it’s compatible with the latest software.
As for fuel burn, it is a bit more in SP than IRL. Much more with power multipliers, but far less than people complain about. 10x, though, is huge fuel burn and I would reduce it if possible. Flying as you would IRL, i.e., not flying around all the time at 100% RPM with the afterburner going helps a lot. Also, what player flies a build for even 10 mins, much less than 1:00 or 1:30 or 2 hrs? No one does. I hate unlimited fuel for all these reasons and wrote a whole screed on this a long ago.
Well, for your calculations, fuel density is 6.8 lbs/gal. Also, there’s a way to produce all the engine effects without burning fuel, try “powerMultiplier=0”, I don’t use exhaust effects in that way, so I’m not 100% sure, but that may be your solution. I don’t think this would be the way to fix your acceleration issue, though. Also, the autoroll issue is either weight or attach points not being symmetric. I often will place parts, mirror without attachments connected and manually attach both points just to make sure they’re symmetric. Even with all that I get asymmetric attachment points, but far fewer otherwise. To tweak, try deadweight as you say, a little bit farther out on the wing is as effective as a lot closer to the centerline.
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.
+1Wow @Leehopard, I realize that people seem to absolutely love this build. It’s a bit surprising to me as I always thought the 105 had more personality. But, thanks!
Even if it were just a description without an actual post, I'd upvote this!
What’s ironic was that the F-20, which in itself was really an improved F-5E, was powered by the same engine as the twin engine F-18, the GE F404 turbofan.
+2@Freerider2142 no, he’s correct, the F-17, which eventually became the F-18, was a direct descendent of the F-5E, but vastly improved and more sophisticated.
+3@F104Deathtrap you noticed the little drop tank surprise I put in there...guess you’re going to have to report to the squadron commander and answer to why you over-Gd the drop tank! Also, yes, the aileron reversal is intentional and due to the symmetric wing...I suggest the pull, unload, roll, pull method, or use the rudder to roll it at high AoA. Anyway, I’m very pleased that someone took the time to notice all its little foibles and I’m glad you enjoyed it!
+1I must say, beautiful jet, really fun to fly, highly plausible for a fictional build. The stopping distance isn’t ridiculously short, though I would never use Bandit as a measure of stopping distance for a 1960s hot rod like this one. The T-38 min allowed runway length is 8,000’, which is about the actual runway distance of Murphy Airport (not including the lead in arrow portion of the runway). If you have a drag chute, that helps a lot with stopping distance as well. But relatively small brakes on small, high pressure tires (and prior to the advent of anti lock brakes on aircraft) does not equal short stopping distances. But your jet flies great and I really enjoyed it.
Those ARE some nice screenshots.
This thing is really cool...T1 and T2 are two of the best movies ever made, it’s too bad they made any more beyond those two, though!
+1@LeonardoEngineering I hope you are well...and thanks for the upvote. How are you doing?
@Freerider2142 well, like the F-5, it’s not carrier compatible...really. I can land it on deck and catch the wire with the emergency hook, but I didn’t put the catapult attachment on it. It’s strictly an adversary simulator for training Navy fighter crews on how to engage smaller, fast and more maneuverable adversary aircraft. Glad you like it otherwise and stay tuned for one of my upcoming aircraft, which may very well be a full up carrier jet.
+1Hmmm...you should take a few minutes to read my USAF insignia post. The national insignia (stars and bars) only goes on the top of the left wing and the bottom of the right wing.
@hRmm I'm sorry, really I am. I have no idea why you are having problems with this. No one else here has had any problems with this. If you're on PC or mobile, you can open in the build screen and try reattaching the missiles. I really don't know what else to tell you.
@hRmm well that’s frustrating as no one else seems to be having that problem...recommend you download again as you might have a glitched or corrupted copy. I’ve been downloading from the site every time you comment to make sure the version you’re using is the same version I’m using and it’s working just fine for me. Also, have you downloaded SP V1.9.205 yet or are you using an earlier version or the Beta?
The Lorenz Beam system is what we used in the U.S. through the 1950s, at least, until replaced in large part by NDBs, VORs and, eventually, the ILS. Great research and good idea, can’t wait to see the final result.
@Oxidiz3 wow, you picked an oldie to upvote. This one is certainly simple and I liked it, though building it on my old iPhone 5 was a bit of a chore. It isn’t 1:1, because I couldn’t resize the engines as there wasn’t Fine Tuner available for iOS and I wanted to keep it proportional. It also came before drag reduction, so the performance isn’t what it should be, though it is fun and simple to fly around.
+1@FlyingHueman thanks! I appreciate it and am very glad you like it.
@hRmm I must assume you didn’t pick it up in the flight manual or that it wasn’t clear from the instructions...you have to go to “Air-To-Air”, then select AG4 to arm the missiles. This allows you to arm the guns without having to listen to the missile acquisition tones. Selecting air to air without selecting AG4 will display “0x AIM-9L”. Subsequently selecting AG4 will the display “2x AIM-9L”. Or are you firing one and then zero displays?
Flies well, stable and fast, appropriate turn rate (I haven’t put my G meter on it yet, but it seems properly British), acceleration is very good, like the RL jet (so I’m told). Simple, not overly complex, like jets of that era. Nice build.
+1@hRmm no...AG4 arms both missiles, but as IRL, each missile acquires separately and is fired separately.
@EngineerOtaku thanks, glad you like it! And I enjoyed that MiG, surely!
+1Nice flight model, 14% on final approach and about 160 KIAS leads to a perfect landing.
+1@CRJ900Pilot of course I can help.
@listeed that’s probably what it is, this build requires the .205, try it after you download the update, if you still have problems after that, please let me know.
AKA Gloster Javelin...nice flight model, very appropriate, not overpowered, gives it very realistic acceleration and flight performance. Cannon effects are very cool, though it’s actually impossible to hit anything with them, I really like using those normally air to ground missiles in the air to air mode. Nice work!
+1@WolfSpark, thanks. I'm happy you like it.
Great build, your original should have gotten even more attention than it did.
+1@Tang0five what? Really? If you really can't download it (it's a v1.9.205 build, BTW), I can try to post another unlisted and you can try and download from there. Please let me know.
@Mustang51 sure thing. I'll upload the concept with several different variations, shouldn't take too long, a day or two, at the most.
+1Thanks, Gentlemen!
+1@Tang0five thanks. I was just about to release it, but I'm still getting the red Beta warning message on the post.
Plus, this is an F-16, which everyone loves, but there are a lot of F-16s out there on the site. Plus, it's grey, which also conspires against upvotes.
@ChisP the fact of the matter is that if you have more followers, you get more upvotes, whether your build is actually any good or not. The good thing is that the more good builds you make, the more followers you will get, and so on and so on. Look at BogdanX, he builds some great aircraft consistently and has a ton of followers for it, but it took awhile for him to get there...we discuss this all the time in my Discord group and can't believe the disparity sometimes. Screenshots, working cockpits and the fact that many upvote based purely on the post, without actually flying the build, all conspire to keep good builders down. But shoddy builders very rarely rise to Bog's level. If you stick with it...and you only have 5,500 pts., you'll develop even more skills and gain more followers and get more points, on and on. It just takes time, it really does. I myself only have two builds that have broken 100 upvotes, the F-100 and the EF132. Some builds that weren't that hard (USAF Insignia Pack) got far more points than other builds I thought were much, much better. There's no rhyme or reason sometimes, but your long term reputation is really based on the quality of your builds as opposed to just one ultra successful build or a lot of crap builds. You're going in the correct direction and, again, 88 upvotes isn't bad, not at all. My F-105 only has 88 upvotes and I have far, far more followers, so you're not doing badly at all at this stage!
+2Wow, that wing loading!
+188 upvotes is very good. My builds only rarely break 100.
Safe, 3/5. EPC/HF/FTD.
I have to say, I agree with @Numbers ...the tail is usually the first thing to go when an aircraft breaks up inflight.
@BroAeronautics, I agree.
+1@BroAeronautics it is too bad, the F-20 was a logical advancement of the F-5 and developed with very little fuss within Northrop itself, not in response to a contract competition. As a result, NGA, to this day, approaches working with the government very differently than they did before the F-20, due to the drubbing they took as a result of not being able to sell any of these jets.
+1You could use this function to do a ripple release on a group of bombs, say for my F-105.
@Evenstsrike333 thank you!
+1@TheKraken3 you are correct, sir!
@TheKraken3 Actually, it’s an F-20. It’s done, I’m just waiting until V1.9.203 officially drops to release it to make sure it’s compatible with the latest software.
Tiny, Simple and Cute. A bit of a handful to fly as it's very pitch sensitive, but it sure is fun!
As for fuel burn, it is a bit more in SP than IRL. Much more with power multipliers, but far less than people complain about. 10x, though, is huge fuel burn and I would reduce it if possible. Flying as you would IRL, i.e., not flying around all the time at 100% RPM with the afterburner going helps a lot. Also, what player flies a build for even 10 mins, much less than 1:00 or 1:30 or 2 hrs? No one does. I hate unlimited fuel for all these reasons and wrote a whole screed on this a long ago.
Well, for your calculations, fuel density is 6.8 lbs/gal. Also, there’s a way to produce all the engine effects without burning fuel, try “powerMultiplier=0”, I don’t use exhaust effects in that way, so I’m not 100% sure, but that may be your solution. I don’t think this would be the way to fix your acceleration issue, though. Also, the autoroll issue is either weight or attach points not being symmetric. I often will place parts, mirror without attachments connected and manually attach both points just to make sure they’re symmetric. Even with all that I get asymmetric attachment points, but far fewer otherwise. To tweak, try deadweight as you say, a little bit farther out on the wing is as effective as a lot closer to the centerline.