Beautiful build with a good flight model. It flies similarly to the fast jets I’ve flown IRL. The fly by wire is interesting, and the weapons are probably the best part, especially the SDBs. You kept the great cockpit view, just like the RL jet...nice work!
Ok, let me say...EXCELLENT MiG-21. My review has minor critiques for how I might have done a few things differently, but I might do some changes and post an unlisted for you to take a look at...but they're minor points. First, you prioritize the flight model over the actual construction, great decision and what I would have done as well. The flight model is excellent, this flies like a real high performance jet without stupid tricks such as unlimited fuel or huge power multipliers on the engine...I have 4,000+ hrs of flight time, including 500+ hrs in this class of jet and it really captures the feel. It's fast on landing, at around 200 KIAS on final, but so was the real thing. It turns right about the right rate and flies more of less at the correct speeds (very tough to get this aspect exactly right in SP). You also use the symmetric wing...nice! That gives it the most correct flight characteristics, instead of using the flat bottom wing, which I do not like at all. I would have given it far more nose up trim authority, as I have to hold constant back stick on final at 200 knots, but I know you were going for precision on the trim input and it's not horribly out of trim on final. As for the construction...Well, I'd make more complex wings, instead of the stock units and the tires stick out the sides when the gear is retracted(!). But the build vs. the flight model prioritization is very well thought out. Despite the fact you've simplified some things to keep the part count fairly low, I think this is probably the best Fishbed I've seen. All the others either look slightly better, but fly horribly or fly ok and don't look as good. I'll say it now: Best MiG-21 I've seen on site!
Well, it's certainly ambitious, I'll say that for sure. Working cockpit, details, correct weight, paneling...and TWO THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY NINE parts. My iPhone 8 regularly handles 1,500+ part builds no problems, but I thought this one would crash it (thankfully it didn't). Believe me, I use plenty of parts in my builds...but 2,000+ on a fighter? You certainly put a lot of time and effort into this one that's for sure and you have the patience required of a great builder. Now for some critiques: It's not 1:1, it's about 125% scale, not sure why that is, perhaps you started with the cockpit, got just a little bit off there and it led to a bigger than desired build? That's usually the problem with full cockpit builds. The flight model...my advice is: drag reduction. You're on Windows, so open up the Overload portion and use "dragScale=0" on major sections and "calculateDrag=False" on details...which also eases the required computing power to run a high part build such as this. Add the drag back in using dragScale so that you can have the correct performance for your jet. This technique allows both realistic acceleration rates, as well as deceleration while turning, which replicates what happens when a high performance jet pulls a high G turn. As it is now, you need an 11:1 thrust to weight ratio to overcome your 13,000+ drag points, which leads to ridiculously fast acceleration rates, then it feels like your jet hits a brick wall when it gets to its top speed. At the end of the day, so many dedicated builders spend so, so much time on the basic build, that they lose patience with the flight model, or they simply don't let others test fly their builds and point out things that might be improved with the flight model. But, I have to admire your effort here, keep building and don't take my critiques as harsh criticism, but rather honest critiques which you could use to make an even better build next time. Just keep learning, getting better and you're going to be one of the better builders here some day soon.
The build looks good. I too have built a Viggen and they’re not easy. As for your flight model, you have 10,000 plus drag points. If you lowered the drag points by either “dragScale=0” or “calculateDrag=False”, that would allow you to not use such a high power multiplier on your engine, keep the acceleration more realistic and allow the jet to bleed energy in turns, which would also be more realistic. You could do this, you’re on PC, correct?
Thanks. I was flying your build this morning before the new update, nice changes. I hope the update didn’t break it (it changes “LandingGear” as an input to -1/1). I’m upvoting and Spotlighting again! P.S., few jets exceed Mach at S.L...a few do so with high speed tanks, like yours, but none with this many stores hanging. The published top speed numbers you find are almost always for clean jets. If you start building custom weapons, be sure to add drag to them to replicate the performance losses from carrying all that crap under the wings and don’t let the loss fool you, it happens IRL!
Not bad. It actually takes off, flies, rolls, turns and lands, albeit really, really hard. But it doesn’t blow up, so it lands like a Navy jet, that’s a plus! It should turn better, which could be done by putting those slabs on rotators instead of using the stock control surfaces. Plus, putting a hook on it would add to the fun factor. This his very similar to one of my first builds...an Eagle...when I was first getting addicted to SP, congrats!
@Brields95 did you check the “blueprints” on that blade chord? Looks correct to me, that variant of the Cobra had the Huey’s drivetrain, along with it’s wide chord main rotor blades.
@LeonardoEngineering this one is more blue than the one you’re thinking of...the prototype’s “BMW blue” color. This one is going to be a “what if” build, so I’m building this one as a fully realized fighter in squadron service with either the USN’s VFC-12 “Fighting Omars”, VFC-13 “Saints” or the USAF’s 57th Wing...all aggressor units. The Omars has this very striking grey-blue paint with light blue markings, which is what you see on my build right now.
Nice, interesting look...seems like you put a lot of effort into this build...very smooth controls...I was having a lot of fun until I tried to launch the missiles at 900 KIAS at low level, I wanted to see what would happen if I ignored the warning. Yup, jet blew into a million pieces, fun done. There are ways of preventing that, because the 300 (knots, mph, kmh...?) restriction when launching a missile is a death sentence for an interdictor bomber like this one.
@BogdanX not a cockpit cam...it's just the standard cockpit view, just like the pilot sees when he cranes his neck over after making a 420 knot strafing pass (and clever placement of the cockpit...).
Nice thought into this one. I’d like to give a little feedback, but it’s just a matter of degrees (it accelerates and turns way too fast and doesn’t lose energy like a delta does, even slow, but it’s fun). But nice build overall.
This is just the thing the MoD would dream up to try and save a few million pounds. Then, 17 years into development, they’ll discover that removing an engine, the reheat and the advanced air-to-air radar is going to cost 25 million pounds more per jet than if they had just bought more Typhoons...then India will drop out of the planned buy and the per unit cost will go up another 127 million pounds. Then, when on the cusp of squadron service, the Labour Party, now in office, under the “leadership” of Jeremy Corbyn, back from political exile (for some reason no one can fathom), will ignominiously cancel the program, drag all 18 examples to the bone yard and chop the wings off while the BBC streams the event on the internet. Nice jet, BTW...
A truly spectacular build. I love the smoothness, realistic performance, functionality, weaponry. It flies realistically, takes off realistically...I haven't yet tried to land because I was blasted out of the sky before I could make it back to friendly territory, but this is really good, congrats on the Feature!
@edensk yeah, I’m really sorry about that, it seems that both “calculateDrag=false” AND “dragScale=0” have to be set, otherwise assemblies can create drag even if one of the two properties are set to zero drag. It’s some sort of SP glitch that I haven’t worked through yet.
An interesting build; you build as many land vehicles as aircraft, yet the flight model is pretty good. There are many builders here who should have made their flight models as convincing, yet didn’t, even though their part counts are four times as many as what you’ve used here. I took off with 30% power, as I do when I evaluate builds, to see what the actually rotate and takeoff speeds are...here it’s around 120 KIAS rotate with a 135 KIAS takeoff speed. Acceleration at full throttle is a bit too swift, as it is for all SP builds with too much power or multipliers on the engine...I know the J50 isn’t as shmexy as the big BFE, but it would help acceleration, lower fuel consumption and allow a more realistic fuel load. Currently, your 15,000 lb. jet has nearly 11,000 lbs. of fuel. It does a full turn at 500 KIAS in around 11.5 seconds, which is probably 11 Gs...more than what it should, and it certainly has excess wing area, probably twice as much, but maneuverability is plausible as planes are always designed with a maneuverability reserve and the pilot would simply look at the G meter and pull so as to maximize performance without over G-ing the airframe or blacking out. It lands really nicely, final approach is comfortably flown at 130 KIAS, which is realistic and everything is well controlled. I’d Spotlight this but you have more points than I do...however, I’ll upvote a creation with a good flight model as this one a hundred times before upvoting an 1,800 part jet that won’t rotate and leave the ground. Nice insignia, BTW. Nice work!
Nice build of an interesting subject...I’ve always been fascinated by the Hansa W.29...I’m sure it didn’t turn quite so tightly in RL, but it’s certainly fun without being overly ridiculous.
@ChisP where did you get 16-17 seconds for 180 degrees of turn? Certainly with bombs and tanks, it should turn much slower than when clean, but I assure you that a clean F-18 does not take 34 seconds to make a full turn at corner velocity. Heck, a standard rate turn, typically flown at about 30 degrees of bank (speed dependent) takes 120 seconds.
@Subnerdica yeah, that’s about right. And why not have a big ego? He’s Chuck Yeager, WWII ace, first man to break the sound barrier, survived the NF-104, Test Pilot School commander and living legend. Bet you’d have a big ego too if you had done those things. While it might make him arrogant, like him or not, it doesn’t mean he’s “not a great person” and it doesn’t mean that he wasn’t helpful in integrating the AIM-9 into the PAF’s J-6s.
@Subnerdica well, that’s an opinion...as with most pilots and fighter pilots in particular, I know he’s fairly opinionated and direct, which can come off as abrasive (he’s still alive, BTW), so if you’re not ready for it, I can see how someone would call that “not a great person.” If it’s anything besides that, you’ll have to be more specific as to what you’ve been told on how he’s not a great person.
@410461765 no worries, it’s a beautiful build anyway and one of my favorite Soviet types. I’ve often thought of building one myself but have been dissuaded by that nightmarishly complex exhaust area...but you executed that beautifully, I must say.
Nice build of the Farmer. First supersonic fighter? There’s actually quite a bit of controversy there...the F-100 entered squadron service on 27 Sep 1954, while the MiG-19 entered service June of 1955. Nonetheless, they both had many teething issues early on due to a steep learning curve with supersonic flight. And they both went on to become significant and important types on their respective sides of the Iron Curtain. The MiG-19, as with most Soviet types, rugged, as well as fast, well armed and had great turn performance. The MiG-19 was the backbone of the PLAAF as the J-6 and Chuck Yeager, of all people, helped the Pakistan AF integrate the AIM-9 into its J-6s(!). Anyway, nice build.
@Hedero no, fuel is placed wherever it will fit...many times in the wings, but also in fuselage tanks. In an airliner, often the lower level is one or more baggage compartments, but, generally, also one or more fuel tanks. Fuel management to maintain CG can be a product of fuel placement, as it is in the 737, where burning the center tank doesn’t move the CG much at all, or automatic by some sort of computer program, or manually with a fuel panel and a burn schedule. In the case of the KC-135, with so much fuel onboard, the copilot manages the fuel panel...which you can see here is the panel which sits below the dual FMSs and in front of the throttle quadrant. With so much fuel, you can also screw up the fuel burn and put the jet out of the CG envelope, which may result in issues such as a tail tip after landing to the jet potentially going out of control in flight. An interesting aside to this is that the P-51 had a big fuselage tank behind the cockpit that pushed the CG so far aft that the airplane couldn’t maneuver violently for fear of losing control. Pilots used that fuel first to compensate for this issue and return the aircraft to a more manageable CG and have more ability to maneuver and turn as hard as they could in combat. That’s akin to SP, where putting the CG and CoL too close will result in an airplane “departing” controlled flight.
@Hedero, though it generally does move it back a little, just based on the fact that a forward CG bias demands that fuel be placed forwards on a build, it may also have a nearly neutral effect or move the CG forward, depending on where you put it. Most builds, like real aircraft, have an acceptable CG envelope, so a little CG shift during flight is expected and completely acceptable. However, you should always land with some fuel remaining, which normally helps to preserve an acceptable CG. Something else to consider is that a CG just barely forward of the main gear helps with achieving a realistic rotation speed...though that CG may not provide the best flight qualities. As the fuel burns off, the CG may shift aft, bad for the initial takeoff (aircraft may tip back onto the tail) but better for performance. In fact, in RL, several jets (B-737 and KC-135 just two examples I’ve personally flown) have tailstands for exactly this reason. While placement of the lifting surfaces relative the CG is also a way of achieving the desired flight performance, and all these factors are interrelated, the ability to fine tune the CG with fuel placement can be another tool in your arsenal.
@Hedero I usually try to emulate the RL aircraft. I’m fairly sure in this case, the Sea Fury, has both wing tanks and a fuselage tank between the cockpit and engine. An additional benefit of fuel is that you can move it around to fine tune your C.G.
@Hedero you’re building a replica and, in fact, you’ve done a pretty good job, so why not take the next step in realism? Is it because it’s difficult to achieve the correct C.G. or the correct endurance? In my book, as a RL pilot, unlimited fuel is a cheap and easy way out. In aviation, fuel awareness is one of the very first things you learn for many reasons, survival above all. Delete it from your replica and it’s just another unrealistic video game build and that’s beneath your ability, to be frank.
There’s some very good things about this build, you obviously put a lot of work into this and it shows. Flight dynamics are pretty good, features and functionality are excellent...lots of Funky Tree work and it shows. The cockpit is interesting, but it’s a little too big for the Phantom’s proper mold line. You could have colored the bombs the proper O.D. and put the Interceptors on the fuselage stations as the were in RL, but this is a nice build, good work.
Nice build, very pretty. Flies very nicely as well. Turning is great, probably fairly accurate to RL as it flies a full turn at 12-13 seconds and about 230 mph IAS, I have no idea what flight parameters @TeamJacier2 was at when he assessed the turning performance as “terrible”. I hate the fact it has unlimited fuel...yuck! And you should have added the guns! Otherwise, very nice work.
I have over 500 hrs of flight time in the 38, this one is a nice build; also, for me, a big surprise is the fact that the speed performance is actually pretty close to the RL jet. It turns better than the RL jet and the roll is a little slower. The weight is significantly off, the RL jet is 12,700 lbs dual and 12,500 lbs when flown solo and the fuel is way too much, but those things really don’t detract much from the overall impression. Nice work.
A very laborious and complex reload system—just like the real thing...nice, two thumbs up. It’s fun, but like the real thing, takes a little practice to get right. I can see why ships went to the VLSs instead, much more efficient. However, if you want to build an OHP or California class cruiser, you need this. I’m surprised I haven’t seen something like this before, because this arm type of launcher was very common up to the early Ticonderoga class cruisers. However, people around here tend to build fictional or Soviet ships with VLSs, not Cold War era US Navy ships. Perhaps this build will convince them to do so in the future. Nice work.
Flap lever is reversed, it accelerates like Hammy the Squirrel after a Red Bull and stops on a dime after landing (I’m sure the RL example doesn’t stop like that). But, it rolls, turns and flies fairly realistically (except for the acceleration) and it looks great...nice, upvote from me.
Veronica, here is my XB-70 from 3 1/2 years ago. Your XB-70 is better than mine, but it could be even better. I recommend that you allow other players test your aircraft, then they can help you to correct problems. Your XB-70 rolls to the right and there are better markings to use. Also, for your next version of this airplane, it will be an “Air Force” version, not an “army” plane. If you need any help or suggestions, please let me know. Congratulations, very nice work!
This puts the “simple” back in SimplePlanes...and created on iOS, no less! It’s quite fun to fly around, though it really needs more trim authority.
+3@Armyguy1534 T-37, T-38 and a couple of other types.
Beautiful build with a good flight model. It flies similarly to the fast jets I’ve flown IRL. The fly by wire is interesting, and the weapons are probably the best part, especially the SDBs. You kept the great cockpit view, just like the RL jet...nice work!
Ok, let me say...EXCELLENT MiG-21. My review has minor critiques for how I might have done a few things differently, but I might do some changes and post an unlisted for you to take a look at...but they're minor points. First, you prioritize the flight model over the actual construction, great decision and what I would have done as well. The flight model is excellent, this flies like a real high performance jet without stupid tricks such as unlimited fuel or huge power multipliers on the engine...I have 4,000+ hrs of flight time, including 500+ hrs in this class of jet and it really captures the feel. It's fast on landing, at around 200 KIAS on final, but so was the real thing. It turns right about the right rate and flies more of less at the correct speeds (very tough to get this aspect exactly right in SP). You also use the symmetric wing...nice! That gives it the most correct flight characteristics, instead of using the flat bottom wing, which I do not like at all. I would have given it far more nose up trim authority, as I have to hold constant back stick on final at 200 knots, but I know you were going for precision on the trim input and it's not horribly out of trim on final. As for the construction...Well, I'd make more complex wings, instead of the stock units and the tires stick out the sides when the gear is retracted(!). But the build vs. the flight model prioritization is very well thought out. Despite the fact you've simplified some things to keep the part count fairly low, I think this is probably the best Fishbed I've seen. All the others either look slightly better, but fly horribly or fly ok and don't look as good. I'll say it now: Best MiG-21 I've seen on site!
+2Well, it's certainly ambitious, I'll say that for sure. Working cockpit, details, correct weight, paneling...and TWO THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY NINE parts. My iPhone 8 regularly handles 1,500+ part builds no problems, but I thought this one would crash it (thankfully it didn't). Believe me, I use plenty of parts in my builds...but 2,000+ on a fighter? You certainly put a lot of time and effort into this one that's for sure and you have the patience required of a great builder. Now for some critiques: It's not 1:1, it's about 125% scale, not sure why that is, perhaps you started with the cockpit, got just a little bit off there and it led to a bigger than desired build? That's usually the problem with full cockpit builds. The flight model...my advice is: drag reduction. You're on Windows, so open up the Overload portion and use "dragScale=0" on major sections and "calculateDrag=False" on details...which also eases the required computing power to run a high part build such as this. Add the drag back in using dragScale so that you can have the correct performance for your jet. This technique allows both realistic acceleration rates, as well as deceleration while turning, which replicates what happens when a high performance jet pulls a high G turn. As it is now, you need an 11:1 thrust to weight ratio to overcome your 13,000+ drag points, which leads to ridiculously fast acceleration rates, then it feels like your jet hits a brick wall when it gets to its top speed. At the end of the day, so many dedicated builders spend so, so much time on the basic build, that they lose patience with the flight model, or they simply don't let others test fly their builds and point out things that might be improved with the flight model. But, I have to admire your effort here, keep building and don't take my critiques as harsh criticism, but rather honest critiques which you could use to make an even better build next time. Just keep learning, getting better and you're going to be one of the better builders here some day soon.
+3The build looks good. I too have built a Viggen and they’re not easy. As for your flight model, you have 10,000 plus drag points. If you lowered the drag points by either “dragScale=0” or “calculateDrag=False”, that would allow you to not use such a high power multiplier on your engine, keep the acceleration more realistic and allow the jet to bleed energy in turns, which would also be more realistic. You could do this, you’re on PC, correct?
+2Thanks. I was flying your build this morning before the new update, nice changes. I hope the update didn’t break it (it changes “LandingGear” as an input to -1/1). I’m upvoting and Spotlighting again! P.S., few jets exceed Mach at S.L...a few do so with high speed tanks, like yours, but none with this many stores hanging. The published top speed numbers you find are almost always for clean jets. If you start building custom weapons, be sure to add drag to them to replicate the performance losses from carrying all that crap under the wings and don’t let the loss fool you, it happens IRL!
Not bad. It actually takes off, flies, rolls, turns and lands, albeit really, really hard. But it doesn’t blow up, so it lands like a Navy jet, that’s a plus! It should turn better, which could be done by putting those slabs on rotators instead of using the stock control surfaces. Plus, putting a hook on it would add to the fun factor. This his very similar to one of my first builds...an Eagle...when I was first getting addicted to SP, congrats!
@Brields95 did you check the “blueprints” on that blade chord? Looks correct to me, that variant of the Cobra had the Huey’s drivetrain, along with it’s wide chord main rotor blades.
@LeonardoEngineering this one is more blue than the one you’re thinking of...the prototype’s “BMW blue” color. This one is going to be a “what if” build, so I’m building this one as a fully realized fighter in squadron service with either the USN’s VFC-12 “Fighting Omars”, VFC-13 “Saints” or the USAF’s 57th Wing...all aggressor units. The Omars has this very striking grey-blue paint with light blue markings, which is what you see on my build right now.
+1Nice, interesting look...seems like you put a lot of effort into this build...very smooth controls...I was having a lot of fun until I tried to launch the missiles at 900 KIAS at low level, I wanted to see what would happen if I ignored the warning. Yup, jet blew into a million pieces, fun done. There are ways of preventing that, because the 300 (knots, mph, kmh...?) restriction when launching a missile is a death sentence for an interdictor bomber like this one.
@Dinoairplanes hmmm...great question...there’s only a single nozzle that I can see, so I think it’s a Tigershark!
@BogdanX not a cockpit cam...it's just the standard cockpit view, just like the pilot sees when he cranes his neck over after making a 420 knot strafing pass (and clever placement of the cockpit...).
Nice Viper...she looks great! Flies great, too! ;)
+1@BogdanX ha, ha...she looked so good in both of them, so why not?
Nice thought into this one. I’d like to give a little feedback, but it’s just a matter of degrees (it accelerates and turns way too fast and doesn’t lose energy like a delta does, even slow, but it’s fun). But nice build overall.
@RamboJutter right, exactly! Nice jet, it should have seen squadron service!
This is just the thing the MoD would dream up to try and save a few million pounds. Then, 17 years into development, they’ll discover that removing an engine, the reheat and the advanced air-to-air radar is going to cost 25 million pounds more per jet than if they had just bought more Typhoons...then India will drop out of the planned buy and the per unit cost will go up another 127 million pounds. Then, when on the cusp of squadron service, the Labour Party, now in office, under the “leadership” of Jeremy Corbyn, back from political exile (for some reason no one can fathom), will ignominiously cancel the program, drag all 18 examples to the bone yard and chop the wings off while the BBC streams the event on the internet. Nice jet, BTW...
+1A truly spectacular build. I love the smoothness, realistic performance, functionality, weaponry. It flies realistically, takes off realistically...I haven't yet tried to land because I was blasted out of the sky before I could make it back to friendly territory, but this is really good, congrats on the Feature!
"It's not impossible, I used to bullseye womprats back home in my T-16...they're not much bigger than 2 meters!"
+3@edensk yeah, I’m really sorry about that, it seems that both “calculateDrag=false” AND “dragScale=0” have to be set, otherwise assemblies can create drag even if one of the two properties are set to zero drag. It’s some sort of SP glitch that I haven’t worked through yet.
+2@BogdanX take a look at this one.
An interesting build; you build as many land vehicles as aircraft, yet the flight model is pretty good. There are many builders here who should have made their flight models as convincing, yet didn’t, even though their part counts are four times as many as what you’ve used here. I took off with 30% power, as I do when I evaluate builds, to see what the actually rotate and takeoff speeds are...here it’s around 120 KIAS rotate with a 135 KIAS takeoff speed. Acceleration at full throttle is a bit too swift, as it is for all SP builds with too much power or multipliers on the engine...I know the J50 isn’t as shmexy as the big BFE, but it would help acceleration, lower fuel consumption and allow a more realistic fuel load. Currently, your 15,000 lb. jet has nearly 11,000 lbs. of fuel. It does a full turn at 500 KIAS in around 11.5 seconds, which is probably 11 Gs...more than what it should, and it certainly has excess wing area, probably twice as much, but maneuverability is plausible as planes are always designed with a maneuverability reserve and the pilot would simply look at the G meter and pull so as to maximize performance without over G-ing the airframe or blacking out. It lands really nicely, final approach is comfortably flown at 130 KIAS, which is realistic and everything is well controlled. I’d Spotlight this but you have more points than I do...however, I’ll upvote a creation with a good flight model as this one a hundred times before upvoting an 1,800 part jet that won’t rotate and leave the ground. Nice insignia, BTW. Nice work!
+2I don’t generally pay too much attention to boats and cars, but this one is too cool not to notice!
+1Nice build of an interesting subject...I’ve always been fascinated by the Hansa W.29...I’m sure it didn’t turn quite so tightly in RL, but it’s certainly fun without being overly ridiculous.
@ChisP where did you get 16-17 seconds for 180 degrees of turn? Certainly with bombs and tanks, it should turn much slower than when clean, but I assure you that a clean F-18 does not take 34 seconds to make a full turn at corner velocity. Heck, a standard rate turn, typically flown at about 30 degrees of bank (speed dependent) takes 120 seconds.
+1I like it, fun to fly factor is greater than 1:1!
Well, 2 is the easiest, but you might want to pick 1. Or 7., as I already did 2...
@Subnerdica I'm not offended, really, I'm not. Just debating on Yeager's personality, is all. We're cool.
@Subnerdica yeah, that’s about right. And why not have a big ego? He’s Chuck Yeager, WWII ace, first man to break the sound barrier, survived the NF-104, Test Pilot School commander and living legend. Bet you’d have a big ego too if you had done those things. While it might make him arrogant, like him or not, it doesn’t mean he’s “not a great person” and it doesn’t mean that he wasn’t helpful in integrating the AIM-9 into the PAF’s J-6s.
@Subnerdica well, that’s an opinion...as with most pilots and fighter pilots in particular, I know he’s fairly opinionated and direct, which can come off as abrasive (he’s still alive, BTW), so if you’re not ready for it, I can see how someone would call that “not a great person.” If it’s anything besides that, you’ll have to be more specific as to what you’ve been told on how he’s not a great person.
Quite the fun build!
@410461765 no worries, it’s a beautiful build anyway and one of my favorite Soviet types. I’ve often thought of building one myself but have been dissuaded by that nightmarishly complex exhaust area...but you executed that beautifully, I must say.
@Marine yes.
Next build, I would suggest using knots IAS because that’s the language most pilots speak, especially for big beautiful birds like this one.
Gotta upvote anything in United colors! And that’s even before flying it!
Nice build of the Farmer. First supersonic fighter? There’s actually quite a bit of controversy there...the F-100 entered squadron service on 27 Sep 1954, while the MiG-19 entered service June of 1955. Nonetheless, they both had many teething issues early on due to a steep learning curve with supersonic flight. And they both went on to become significant and important types on their respective sides of the Iron Curtain. The MiG-19, as with most Soviet types, rugged, as well as fast, well armed and had great turn performance. The MiG-19 was the backbone of the PLAAF as the J-6 and Chuck Yeager, of all people, helped the Pakistan AF integrate the AIM-9 into its J-6s(!). Anyway, nice build.
+2Beautiful jet, handles very nicely, controls are well harmonized. Great build!
+2Great shape, very accurate! Flies well, nice work!
@Hedero no, fuel is placed wherever it will fit...many times in the wings, but also in fuselage tanks. In an airliner, often the lower level is one or more baggage compartments, but, generally, also one or more fuel tanks. Fuel management to maintain CG can be a product of fuel placement, as it is in the 737, where burning the center tank doesn’t move the CG much at all, or automatic by some sort of computer program, or manually with a fuel panel and a burn schedule. In the case of the KC-135, with so much fuel onboard, the copilot manages the fuel panel...which you can see here is the panel which sits below the dual FMSs and in front of the throttle quadrant. With so much fuel, you can also screw up the fuel burn and put the jet out of the CG envelope, which may result in issues such as a tail tip after landing to the jet potentially going out of control in flight. An interesting aside to this is that the P-51 had a big fuselage tank behind the cockpit that pushed the CG so far aft that the airplane couldn’t maneuver violently for fear of losing control. Pilots used that fuel first to compensate for this issue and return the aircraft to a more manageable CG and have more ability to maneuver and turn as hard as they could in combat. That’s akin to SP, where putting the CG and CoL too close will result in an airplane “departing” controlled flight.
@Hedero, though it generally does move it back a little, just based on the fact that a forward CG bias demands that fuel be placed forwards on a build, it may also have a nearly neutral effect or move the CG forward, depending on where you put it. Most builds, like real aircraft, have an acceptable CG envelope, so a little CG shift during flight is expected and completely acceptable. However, you should always land with some fuel remaining, which normally helps to preserve an acceptable CG. Something else to consider is that a CG just barely forward of the main gear helps with achieving a realistic rotation speed...though that CG may not provide the best flight qualities. As the fuel burns off, the CG may shift aft, bad for the initial takeoff (aircraft may tip back onto the tail) but better for performance. In fact, in RL, several jets (B-737 and KC-135 just two examples I’ve personally flown) have tailstands for exactly this reason. While placement of the lifting surfaces relative the CG is also a way of achieving the desired flight performance, and all these factors are interrelated, the ability to fine tune the CG with fuel placement can be another tool in your arsenal.
@Hedero I usually try to emulate the RL aircraft. I’m fairly sure in this case, the Sea Fury, has both wing tanks and a fuselage tank between the cockpit and engine. An additional benefit of fuel is that you can move it around to fine tune your C.G.
@Hedero you’re building a replica and, in fact, you’ve done a pretty good job, so why not take the next step in realism? Is it because it’s difficult to achieve the correct C.G. or the correct endurance? In my book, as a RL pilot, unlimited fuel is a cheap and easy way out. In aviation, fuel awareness is one of the very first things you learn for many reasons, survival above all. Delete it from your replica and it’s just another unrealistic video game build and that’s beneath your ability, to be frank.
There’s some very good things about this build, you obviously put a lot of work into this and it shows. Flight dynamics are pretty good, features and functionality are excellent...lots of Funky Tree work and it shows. The cockpit is interesting, but it’s a little too big for the Phantom’s proper mold line. You could have colored the bombs the proper O.D. and put the Interceptors on the fuselage stations as the were in RL, but this is a nice build, good work.
Nice build, very pretty. Flies very nicely as well. Turning is great, probably fairly accurate to RL as it flies a full turn at 12-13 seconds and about 230 mph IAS, I have no idea what flight parameters @TeamJacier2 was at when he assessed the turning performance as “terrible”. I hate the fact it has unlimited fuel...yuck! And you should have added the guns! Otherwise, very nice work.
Ridiculous...and ridiculously fun.
I have over 500 hrs of flight time in the 38, this one is a nice build; also, for me, a big surprise is the fact that the speed performance is actually pretty close to the RL jet. It turns better than the RL jet and the roll is a little slower. The weight is significantly off, the RL jet is 12,700 lbs dual and 12,500 lbs when flown solo and the fuel is way too much, but those things really don’t detract much from the overall impression. Nice work.
A very laborious and complex reload system—just like the real thing...nice, two thumbs up. It’s fun, but like the real thing, takes a little practice to get right. I can see why ships went to the VLSs instead, much more efficient. However, if you want to build an OHP or California class cruiser, you need this. I’m surprised I haven’t seen something like this before, because this arm type of launcher was very common up to the early Ticonderoga class cruisers. However, people around here tend to build fictional or Soviet ships with VLSs, not Cold War era US Navy ships. Perhaps this build will convince them to do so in the future. Nice work.
+2Flap lever is reversed, it accelerates like Hammy the Squirrel after a Red Bull and stops on a dime after landing (I’m sure the RL example doesn’t stop like that). But, it rolls, turns and flies fairly realistically (except for the acceleration) and it looks great...nice, upvote from me.
+2Veronica, here is my XB-70 from 3 1/2 years ago. Your XB-70 is better than mine, but it could be even better. I recommend that you allow other players test your aircraft, then they can help you to correct problems. Your XB-70 rolls to the right and there are better markings to use. Also, for your next version of this airplane, it will be an “Air Force” version, not an “army” plane. If you need any help or suggestions, please let me know. Congratulations, very nice work!