@Mustang51 I don’t typically put a lot of suspension on my gear. I select most of my subjects carefully and they’re jets I like—their RL counterparts were also typically operated off of concrete runways with plenty of length. So the travel is minimal and the settings are quite firm. That prevents wallowing around. Though suspension and shock travel are cool features, I’d rather have an aircraft that takes off and lands smoothly, even if I eliminate the suspension completely. Ultimately, I recommend minimal travel and hard settings, because that’s what the RL jets had as they weren’t meant to travel off-road.
You’re right, there is no such thing as the perfect build. But this one is very good and flies realistically. The acceleration, roll rate, turning performance and overall speed and altitude performance are exactly what I would expect from a fighter of the 1950s. Also, the numbers match the RL numbers closely. The landing is tricky, which seems the most difficult thing to perfect and the braking performance is too good, but those are minor things as with a little practice, one can learn to land this well. I’m edified that you were inspired by my post and I’m sorry I didn’t see this one before...nice work!
@TheFantasticTyphoon well, with a BS in History from USAFA, I agree...the Japanese never fought in N Africa...however, the decision to switch to the yellow outlined insignia was based on the fear that the “red dot” would be mistaken for the Japanese insignia. The yellow outline insignia was meant to be used in all theaters on USAAF aircraft (standardization) ... however, as the strategy at that point of the war called for the major effort to be against Germany and Italy while “holding” the Japanese in the Pacific, the yellow outline is primarily associated with the North Africa campaign, though it was also used in the Pacific and on USN aircraft as well. To this day, that is the case ... Google “Operation Torch Insignia” and see what you get ... But, there are exceptions to every rule and that insignia was used only for a short while. That’s why, for the sake of brevity, I called it the “North Africa Insignia”, though, perhaps, I should have named it the “Yellow Outline Insignia”. But that doesn’t quite ring the same way as the “North Africa Insignia”, does it? You seem to have an interest in WWII history, which I still find immensely fascinating to this day...if you ever would like to discuss the subject, you’ll always find me a willing participant.
@RicardoAs1515 yeah, think we’re talking past one another, because that doesn’t really make a lot of sense. Anyhow, let me just say this more clearly: When one shoots down another aircraft in combat, it’s called a “kill”...not “murder”, as in, “the ace had five kills.” You don’t say, “the ace had five murders.” Besides the fact it’s grammatically incorrect, using the term “murder” has a totally different connotation, unless you intend on making the point that this particular shoot down was an unjustified killing as opposed to a combat kill.
@ChisP yes, I did. That’s a great build, very nice flight model, he worked hard on it and I pointed out some inaccuracies with his markings on his test versions. That inspired me to do this for the community at large.
@ErickvCamilo actually, that would be really simple, especially the modern Brazilian insignia...what exactly are you looking for? The modern roundel by itself?
@ChisP yes, you can. That’s the intent, anyway; I’m sure you’ll find a variation which is at least close to what you need. From there, you can scale, tweak, adjust and nudge until it’s close to perfect. Good luck with your building.
@Saviggriffin it’s located at the Arctic Island north of Yeager. Take off from Yeager, make a 180 degree turn and fly a heading of 355 degrees. You’ll get there before too long. Once in range, the Arctic Base will attempt to shoot you down.
As for this specific build, I flew it at 350 knots IAS, which I guess is about the speed a jet like this would fly a loop. I looped it in 2,500 ft...which is way more G than any jet could fly without the pilot passing out. For a loop at 350 knots, it should take around 5,000’-6,000’. So, yes, it turns better than it should, even accounting for the pilot pulling harder than he should in a loop.
No, not true...many trainers have an instantaneous turn rate as good as any fighter. The difference is in sustained turn rate and the speeds at which those turns are flown, especially when compared to straight wing fighters such as this one. A T-38 pulls 7.33 Gs and the F-16 pulls 9 Gs...the difference is that a lightweight F-16 can pull a 9 G turn while remaining level, while a T-38 will need to trade altitude or airspeed to maintain that 7.33 G turn as it has far less thrust than the Viper. Also, a straight winged trainer like your build can turn as well as most fighters, it flies that turn at a far lower airspeed than a fighter. However, a 4 G turn flown at 250 knots IAS is smaller than a 9 G turn flown at 600 knots IAS, so it’s a fallacy to say a trainer does not turn as well as a fighter, because, often, they do.
Well, I hope you’re comparing the two using the same TAS/IAS; otherwise comparison just isn’t valid. I can’t see what speed the DCS F-15 is flying. Also your SP build is loaded with Boom 50s, which in RL, would significantly degrade the turning capability of any jet.
Hey, need to correct something I said: In the Navy, RED is on speed, GREEN is high AoA/low airspeed and YELLOW is low AoA/high airspeed...I was a USAF pilot and our AoA indicator used the colors I talked about below, who knew? Also, in the F-14 (and probably the other jets as well), the AoA lights were actuated with the TAILHOOK down, which makes sense as they’re used to land on the boat. Here’s a link with the actual verbiage from the NATOPS (-1 flight manual, in Air Force speak). Just want to make sure you have all the details correct!
I have no idea what the numbers might be, but if SP returns values close to the RL values, probably somewhere in the 3-10 degree range for on speed AoA. It’s going to take trial and error on your part to figure out which AoA works.
Well, first, I’d use a “LandingGear” activation group for all three lights. The red light would have “input=abs(AngleOfAttack)>x”. The green light would have “input=x>abs(AngleOfAttack)>y” and the yellow light would be “input=abs(AngleOfAttack)>y” where x is the AoA is too high (slow) and y is the AoA is too low (fast). Bear in mind, this is all from memory, you’ll have to play around with it to make sure the statements and syntax are correct.
Thinking about this a bit, if you fly your jet at the correct approach speed and angle, the correct approach AoA might be, say, 5 degrees nose up to the relative wind, using a +/- 2 degree range (3 to 7 degrees), anything more than 7 degrees AoA would be red and anything less than 3 degrees would be yellow. For this purpose, I’d just use the absolute value of the AoA and use that in your funky tree calculation.
@CRJ900Pilot Green is on speed/AoA, red is too slow/high AoA and yellow is too fast/AoA lower than approach AoA. Bear in mind being too fast is almost as bad as being too slow. Also, here’s another tip: in SP high AoA, which is thought of as a positive number in RL, actually has a NEGATIVE value in the game and vice versa for low AoA angles, which are negative values in SP.
@CRJ900Pilot Basically, what @edensk said. Inside the cockpit, most fighter type aircraft, Navy or Air Force, have a light indicator, which connected to the AoA system and tells the pilot if they’re on approach speed (correct AoA), slow (AoA too high, near to stall AoA) or too fast (AoA above approach AoA). The pilot adjusts his approach speed and approach angle appropriately...in the T-38 it was referred to as “flying the green donut”, because an on speed/on AoA indication was a green “o” light. Those lights, green, amber (yellow) and red on the nose gear of the F-4, F-14 and F-18, et. al., are simply repeater lights of what the pilot sees in his cockpit. The Landing Signals Officer (LSO), who stands by the optical light system on the boat’s deck and monitors every carrier landing, uses these lights while the jet is on approach and issues commands to the approaching jet to correct, continue or go around from the approach. There are other ways to tell during the day if a jet is too fast or slow, in fact when performing U-2 mobile duties from the chase car, I could absolutely tell if a jet was correctly configured, too fast or too slow (mostly based on relative angle of the tailwheel vs. the main gear), but during the night, these lights really help.
This is a little known and little built subject...and a pretty good job. It looks good and though you could have used inlets for your control surfaces, you’ve incorporated a very accurate shape and appropriate detail. The flight model isn’t half bad, either. I’ve noticed there are many, many great looking builds that fly horribly and this one flies decently well. It accelerates not inappropriately, though it turns a bit too well, but one doesn’t have to pull back all the way to turn. My biggest gripe is that the flap controls are reversed. Also, don’t forget to credit thealban for the markings. Nice.
@Vidal99977 I fly the 737 for a major US airline and an engine failure, as related by Iranian authorities, does not bring down an airliner in flames. I suffered an engine failure (compressor stall), flames shot out the back (as related by the passengers in back). We simply secured the engine and proceeded to landing. Even SWA1380, which suffered an uncontained engine failure, didn’t burn and fall out of the sky. And by the way, the engine manufacturer isn’t even Boeing, it’s CFM, who builds the CFM56 engine which powers the 737NG, so you can’t even blame that on Boeing, even IF true. Gimme a break. The Iranians better have a rock solid explanation plus release the black boxes for independent analysis before I believe their propaganda.
I could write 100 pages on my assessment for this build...bottom line it’s impressive given the builder’s level. The highlights are the smooth flight model, the overall shape of the jet and the cockpit...especially because the builder managed to build a full cockpit without sacrificing the rest of the plane. The paneling is nice and there’s clearly been a lot of work here. Next time I would suggest more drag reduction because it accelerates a bit too swiftly and it’s still too slow down low. And I must say, the JF-17 is attractive for a modern jet, but it’s not the most beautiful airplane out there ;)...that honor would go to the F-80, IMHO. Nice work!
Helis are tough...difficult to fly, so I think many players don’t even bother. This one isn’t particularly easy, as it is. But this is good work from a new builder and I appreciate that...keep building and here’s a Spotlight!
The flight model is not as unrealistic as the description would lead one to believe...it does turn a little too quickly, but not unbelievably so. It might be a bit too slow, but I can chalk that up to this being a well knackered example that’s been put thorough the wringer during its time fighting the Japanese at Rangoon, so it’s going to be bent and old and slower than a factory fresh example. It actually looks like a Hurri, and it’s simple and fun to play around with. The only thing I would do differently next time is to improve the roll rate which is on the slower side. Nice work.
It’s interesting you would spend all this effort to make a decent F-105...they’re difficult, I should know, but then use it for the “naval attack challenge” as the Thud was, first, a USAF nuclear strike bomber, then the conventional bomber workhorse for the first half of the Vietnam War. Never attacked a naval target that I know of; however, I would expect that it would have made a formidable naval attack aircraft, if it had ever been used as such.
Nice heli...I don’t normally fly them in SP, but this one is fun. You don’t need the “thrusters”, though, I can take off, (kind of) hover, accelerate to 150 mph, slow, turn around and attempt a landing without them. I’m going to keep working at this, it’s difficult, but not impossible to fly, like a real helicopter.
Well researched, well thought out and well built. In reminds me of a real aircraft in that there are operating restrictions. It’s great you left the throttle and pitch controls intact, many builders don’t have the guts to do that as users tend to complain...but I really like the extra bit of challenge to spice things up, nice work!
@MrPorg137 thank you, I'm glad you took the time to read it.
@SimplyPlain ok, yeah, I see it now, not immediately clear from the instructions and a bit complex, but it's there.
Hi...does this thing have trim?
Awesome chopper!
@Mustang51 I don’t typically put a lot of suspension on my gear. I select most of my subjects carefully and they’re jets I like—their RL counterparts were also typically operated off of concrete runways with plenty of length. So the travel is minimal and the settings are quite firm. That prevents wallowing around. Though suspension and shock travel are cool features, I’d rather have an aircraft that takes off and lands smoothly, even if I eliminate the suspension completely. Ultimately, I recommend minimal travel and hard settings, because that’s what the RL jets had as they weren’t meant to travel off-road.
You’re right, there is no such thing as the perfect build. But this one is very good and flies realistically. The acceleration, roll rate, turning performance and overall speed and altitude performance are exactly what I would expect from a fighter of the 1950s. Also, the numbers match the RL numbers closely. The landing is tricky, which seems the most difficult thing to perfect and the braking performance is too good, but those are minor things as with a little practice, one can learn to land this well. I’m edified that you were inspired by my post and I’m sorry I didn’t see this one before...nice work!
+1Beautiful, nice work! I’m sure you could build a cockpit less version that you could 3D print.
@TheFantasticTyphoon well, at least I feel edified in that at least one user has read my dissertation on the history of the USAF insignia.
@TheFantasticTyphoon hmmm...I can see that those with a limited knowledge of WWII history might be confused.
@TheFantasticTyphoon well, with a BS in History from USAFA, I agree...the Japanese never fought in N Africa...however, the decision to switch to the yellow outlined insignia was based on the fear that the “red dot” would be mistaken for the Japanese insignia. The yellow outline insignia was meant to be used in all theaters on USAAF aircraft (standardization) ... however, as the strategy at that point of the war called for the major effort to be against Germany and Italy while “holding” the Japanese in the Pacific, the yellow outline is primarily associated with the North Africa campaign, though it was also used in the Pacific and on USN aircraft as well. To this day, that is the case ... Google “Operation Torch Insignia” and see what you get ... But, there are exceptions to every rule and that insignia was used only for a short while. That’s why, for the sake of brevity, I called it the “North Africa Insignia”, though, perhaps, I should have named it the “Yellow Outline Insignia”. But that doesn’t quite ring the same way as the “North Africa Insignia”, does it? You seem to have an interest in WWII history, which I still find immensely fascinating to this day...if you ever would like to discuss the subject, you’ll always find me a willing participant.
+1@nameisalreadytaken actually I am planning to build a Soviet interceptor, so I may release some Soviet insignia along with that build.
@RicardoAs1515 yeah, think we’re talking past one another, because that doesn’t really make a lot of sense. Anyhow, let me just say this more clearly: When one shoots down another aircraft in combat, it’s called a “kill”...not “murder”, as in, “the ace had five kills.” You don’t say, “the ace had five murders.” Besides the fact it’s grammatically incorrect, using the term “murder” has a totally different connotation, unless you intend on making the point that this particular shoot down was an unjustified killing as opposed to a combat kill.
+2Nice build...pero, "murder" significa "asesinato"...la palabra corecta es "kill", que significa mas "matar en combate".
+2@ChisP yes, I did. That’s a great build, very nice flight model, he worked hard on it and I pointed out some inaccuracies with his markings on his test versions. That inspired me to do this for the community at large.
@ErickvCamilo actually, that would be really simple, especially the modern Brazilian insignia...what exactly are you looking for? The modern roundel by itself?
+1@ChisP yes, you can. That’s the intent, anyway; I’m sure you’ll find a variation which is at least close to what you need. From there, you can scale, tweak, adjust and nudge until it’s close to perfect. Good luck with your building.
@ChisP nope.
@Mustang51 you’re very welcome, happy building!
@Saviggriffin it’s located at the Arctic Island north of Yeager. Take off from Yeager, make a 180 degree turn and fly a heading of 355 degrees. You’ll get there before too long. Once in range, the Arctic Base will attempt to shoot you down.
+1Wish I could Spotlight ya, buddy, but you have many more points than I do!
+1Beautiful work!
+1@LeonardoEngineering you may ask for my input at any time. Glad to help.
+2As for this specific build, I flew it at 350 knots IAS, which I guess is about the speed a jet like this would fly a loop. I looped it in 2,500 ft...which is way more G than any jet could fly without the pilot passing out. For a loop at 350 knots, it should take around 5,000’-6,000’. So, yes, it turns better than it should, even accounting for the pilot pulling harder than he should in a loop.
+1No, not true...many trainers have an instantaneous turn rate as good as any fighter. The difference is in sustained turn rate and the speeds at which those turns are flown, especially when compared to straight wing fighters such as this one. A T-38 pulls 7.33 Gs and the F-16 pulls 9 Gs...the difference is that a lightweight F-16 can pull a 9 G turn while remaining level, while a T-38 will need to trade altitude or airspeed to maintain that 7.33 G turn as it has far less thrust than the Viper. Also, a straight winged trainer like your build can turn as well as most fighters, it flies that turn at a far lower airspeed than a fighter. However, a 4 G turn flown at 250 knots IAS is smaller than a 9 G turn flown at 600 knots IAS, so it’s a fallacy to say a trainer does not turn as well as a fighter, because, often, they do.
+1@LeonardoEngineering now I’m intrigued, what’s causing the autoroll?
+1@LeonardoEngineering hey, no worries! I’m hit or miss on the site as well.
+1Well, I hope you’re comparing the two using the same TAS/IAS; otherwise comparison just isn’t valid. I can’t see what speed the DCS F-15 is flying. Also your SP build is loaded with Boom 50s, which in RL, would significantly degrade the turning capability of any jet.
+8It has autoroll, which is highly annoying, but lots of surprising features, very fun.
@Lambojuli someone spotlighted you.
Hey, need to correct something I said: In the Navy, RED is on speed, GREEN is high AoA/low airspeed and YELLOW is low AoA/high airspeed...I was a USAF pilot and our AoA indicator used the colors I talked about below, who knew? Also, in the F-14 (and probably the other jets as well), the AoA lights were actuated with the TAILHOOK down, which makes sense as they’re used to land on the boat. Here’s a link with the actual verbiage from the NATOPS (-1 flight manual, in Air Force speak). Just want to make sure you have all the details correct!
I have no idea what the numbers might be, but if SP returns values close to the RL values, probably somewhere in the 3-10 degree range for on speed AoA. It’s going to take trial and error on your part to figure out which AoA works.
Well, first, I’d use a “LandingGear” activation group for all three lights. The red light would have “input=abs(AngleOfAttack)>x”. The green light would have “input=x>abs(AngleOfAttack)>y” and the yellow light would be “input=abs(AngleOfAttack)>y” where x is the AoA is too high (slow) and y is the AoA is too low (fast). Bear in mind, this is all from memory, you’ll have to play around with it to make sure the statements and syntax are correct.
Thinking about this a bit, if you fly your jet at the correct approach speed and angle, the correct approach AoA might be, say, 5 degrees nose up to the relative wind, using a +/- 2 degree range (3 to 7 degrees), anything more than 7 degrees AoA would be red and anything less than 3 degrees would be yellow. For this purpose, I’d just use the absolute value of the AoA and use that in your funky tree calculation.
@CRJ900Pilot Green is on speed/AoA, red is too slow/high AoA and yellow is too fast/AoA lower than approach AoA. Bear in mind being too fast is almost as bad as being too slow. Also, here’s another tip: in SP high AoA, which is thought of as a positive number in RL, actually has a NEGATIVE value in the game and vice versa for low AoA angles, which are negative values in SP.
@CRJ900Pilot Basically, what @edensk said. Inside the cockpit, most fighter type aircraft, Navy or Air Force, have a light indicator, which connected to the AoA system and tells the pilot if they’re on approach speed (correct AoA), slow (AoA too high, near to stall AoA) or too fast (AoA above approach AoA). The pilot adjusts his approach speed and approach angle appropriately...in the T-38 it was referred to as “flying the green donut”, because an on speed/on AoA indication was a green “o” light. Those lights, green, amber (yellow) and red on the nose gear of the F-4, F-14 and F-18, et. al., are simply repeater lights of what the pilot sees in his cockpit. The Landing Signals Officer (LSO), who stands by the optical light system on the boat’s deck and monitors every carrier landing, uses these lights while the jet is on approach and issues commands to the approaching jet to correct, continue or go around from the approach. There are other ways to tell during the day if a jet is too fast or slow, in fact when performing U-2 mobile duties from the chase car, I could absolutely tell if a jet was correctly configured, too fast or too slow (mostly based on relative angle of the tailwheel vs. the main gear), but during the night, these lights really help.
+3No, this looks powerful, mean and aggressive.
This is a little known and little built subject...and a pretty good job. It looks good and though you could have used inlets for your control surfaces, you’ve incorporated a very accurate shape and appropriate detail. The flight model isn’t half bad, either. I’ve noticed there are many, many great looking builds that fly horribly and this one flies decently well. It accelerates not inappropriately, though it turns a bit too well, but one doesn’t have to pull back all the way to turn. My biggest gripe is that the flap controls are reversed. Also, don’t forget to credit thealban for the markings. Nice.
@Vidal99977 I fly the 737 for a major US airline and an engine failure, as related by Iranian authorities, does not bring down an airliner in flames. I suffered an engine failure (compressor stall), flames shot out the back (as related by the passengers in back). We simply secured the engine and proceeded to landing. Even SWA1380, which suffered an uncontained engine failure, didn’t burn and fall out of the sky. And by the way, the engine manufacturer isn’t even Boeing, it’s CFM, who builds the CFM56 engine which powers the 737NG, so you can’t even blame that on Boeing, even IF true. Gimme a break. The Iranians better have a rock solid explanation plus release the black boxes for independent analysis before I believe their propaganda.
+3Wow, you really like 727s, don’t you?
Great build.
+1I could write 100 pages on my assessment for this build...bottom line it’s impressive given the builder’s level. The highlights are the smooth flight model, the overall shape of the jet and the cockpit...especially because the builder managed to build a full cockpit without sacrificing the rest of the plane. The paneling is nice and there’s clearly been a lot of work here. Next time I would suggest more drag reduction because it accelerates a bit too swiftly and it’s still too slow down low. And I must say, the JF-17 is attractive for a modern jet, but it’s not the most beautiful airplane out there ;)...that honor would go to the F-80, IMHO. Nice work!
+3Helis are tough...difficult to fly, so I think many players don’t even bother. This one isn’t particularly easy, as it is. But this is good work from a new builder and I appreciate that...keep building and here’s a Spotlight!
The flight model is not as unrealistic as the description would lead one to believe...it does turn a little too quickly, but not unbelievably so. It might be a bit too slow, but I can chalk that up to this being a well knackered example that’s been put thorough the wringer during its time fighting the Japanese at Rangoon, so it’s going to be bent and old and slower than a factory fresh example. It actually looks like a Hurri, and it’s simple and fun to play around with. The only thing I would do differently next time is to improve the roll rate which is on the slower side. Nice work.
Nice!
+1A fun to fly build.
@SimplyPlain thanks, yours is good with many details most miss, like that speedbrake.
@SimplyPlain have you seen my attempt at this subject?
It’s interesting you would spend all this effort to make a decent F-105...they’re difficult, I should know, but then use it for the “naval attack challenge” as the Thud was, first, a USAF nuclear strike bomber, then the conventional bomber workhorse for the first half of the Vietnam War. Never attacked a naval target that I know of; however, I would expect that it would have made a formidable naval attack aircraft, if it had ever been used as such.
+1Nice heli...I don’t normally fly them in SP, but this one is fun. You don’t need the “thrusters”, though, I can take off, (kind of) hover, accelerate to 150 mph, slow, turn around and attempt a landing without them. I’m going to keep working at this, it’s difficult, but not impossible to fly, like a real helicopter.
Well researched, well thought out and well built. In reminds me of a real aircraft in that there are operating restrictions. It’s great you left the throttle and pitch controls intact, many builders don’t have the guts to do that as users tend to complain...but I really like the extra bit of challenge to spice things up, nice work!