Well, it looks good...and we don’t see many/any Fury’s on the site. If I may suggest: next time make the flaps move down when you move the flap handle (VTOL slider) down, no airplane in the world (there may be exceptions, but I know of none) has flap controls reversed as they are here.
This thing is ridonculous...those two 19 year old M1 crewmen I watched barreling across the tank practice area at Ft Carson at more than 60 mph—they reminded me of the two dudes who took Cameron’s Ferrari for a joyride in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off—would love this thing!
Interesting build of a little known Soviet type. I personally am always interested in ultra high altitude aircraft. I was very curious when I read in your description that it had set the altitude record in 1964, a few years after which both the U-2 (70,000’+) and the A-12 (SR-71 predecessor, 80,000’+) had flown and set records far in excess of 20,174 meters, which is only just over 66,000 ft. Heck, when I flew the U-2 myself, I exceeded 66,000’ on practically every single high altitude sortie. Anyway, nice build, sorry I cannot Spotlight it as you have far exceeded my own point total 👍!
@XJ4B Now that I actually have a few quiet minutes to compose some thoughts, I’ll attempt to explain this again. I apologize as I have not yet been successful in communicating clearly in a way you understand my intent. First, I have a lot of life experience and significantly more years on this earth, so my feedback is that using the term “you’re overrated” and then, even if it’s the next words, “I like your builds” is condescending. Especially coming from someone whose expertise is still coming along. I myself wouldn’t even use that phrase because it would deflate any ego out there, deserving or not. It’s called tact...there are other polite ways of providing feedback, especially in a public forum. And in this case, it’s not deserved. He’s not overrated, he’s been at this awhile, he produces quality builds that combine functionality, realism and fun. Lastly, I took these comments, as you perhaps should have, to another post because they were meant for you to consider privately, my intent is not to thrash anyone in public. It’s called “tact” and it’s an art many don’t know. If, after this, you still disagree, that’s fine, but please take it for what it’s worth.
@X4JB too much trouble to post something unlisted for this convo...just wanted a quick opp to provide a little feedback, then conversation goes away. And I read your original comment. But, anyway, you miss my point, simply saying “you’re overrated” is fairly insulting in itself, no matter the other comments surrounding...kind of like a s* sandwich. As for my HO, he’s not overrated, he has dozens and dozens of fine builds and improves with each new one. Some take the route of hundreds of crappy builds...he Isn’t one of them. We all have to make compromises with the build system here and I must fundamentally disagree with your assessment, his compromises strike a good balance between realism, functionality and fun.
@X4JB, concerning Boggy’s IAR 80, your comments are way off base and, for the sake of avoiding a big tit for tat exchange and public argument between the two of you, let me offer some friendly advice: You may have a couple of valid criticisms, but we all have to make a few compromises because the SP build template has its limitations we all need to deal with. But to say, “I don’t mean any disrespect, but you’re the most overrated builder on the site”...that’s not constructive criticism by any means and it’s essentially “dude, you shouldn’t be ranked so highly because your builds suck because they have the following problems.” Stick with the facts, be blunt if you would like with “these are the things you might do differently next time”, but for someone who used stock LG on his last airplane build, made a lot of sacrifices in the RL outline to integrate a hollow canopy area, whose flaps are not functional and whose flight model is so limited that even, I, a RL airline pilot and former military pilot with 4,500 hrs of flight time can’t even take off, I’d reconsider your approach to criticism and perhaps soften it a bit.
Just to make sure I’m not being unfair, your Bf isn’t bad, there are some very good bits there and you have a nice eye for shape and detail, but your approach to Boggy’s build is way off base for an airplane that actually mimics the RL thing pretty well. If you object, tell me how I’m wrong; for you, as with every enthusiastic builder on the site, I want to see all of us succeed. I think that if you soften your approach, choose not to come off the top rope, you’ll get a lot further, faster. Anyway, I’ll give you a chance to read this, perhaps respond, then I’ll delete it, no harm, no foul.
@spefyjerbf well, there was no reason the gear would have collapsed on touchdown...that part was within normal parameters. However the right gear DID collapse when they left the runway, which is why the right wingtip ends up in the snow. What happened here is that the landing spoilers did not deploy as they should have on touchdown, that would have dumped the lift from the wing and produced the drag expected upon landing and the plane probably would have landed and exited normally. Sadly, what probably happened here is that the crew probably didn’t run the before landing checklist properly and didn’t arm the spoilers for landing.
Looks accurate, but are you sure that the horizontal stab moves differentially for roll? This is a mistake so many builders make...differential movement of the stabs or other than “normal” flight control movements simply wasn’t a thing until the F-16 and computerized flight controls came along, and really wasn’t present when this jet was initially designed (Etendard) in the ‘50s.
@Mercyaircraftcorporation the big problem with making full frame like this is probably weight. If you construct a 1:1 build using standard fuselage sections and techniques, the resultant weight is pretty close to the real thing. Adding a bunch of internal parts will multiply the weight for a section of your build. You’ll probably have to mass scale (and drag scale) all your parts to make sure your builds don’t tip the scales—if you care about such things. I see you’re using those modded fuel cells—which I hate, generally—but even with that, your A-20 still weighs in at +52,000 lbs., more than twice the real thing.
“A” for effort here, nice concept, though I personally like to see more attention devoted to nailing the shape and dimensions of a replica build. Do you have the DesignerSuite mod yet?
Not bad...better than mine from 3 years ago. Also, nice job on the camo paint. Not many people know the story of the heroism of the Argentine pilots...they deserved better than they got.
Flies well, very fun. I especially like the livery, a bit more fantastical, which is fun. Great details, such as the wheel wells, though I would have named the post “early USAAF (U.S. Army Air Forces) version”.
@Mustang51 me thinks you misunderstand...there was a comment a bit lower down in which a player commented that he had seen a twin engine B-24...I think they had mixed up the B-24 with the B-25.
@MrPorg137 @Flash0o0Green Looks like a B-17, kinda flies like a B-17, four engines, yup, just like a B-17...also like a B-24! Imagine that! The B-24 never, ever had 4 engines and there were never late war refits with 2 engines. The twin engine, twin tail, high wing U.S. bomber in WWII was the B-25, which is probably the plane you’re thinking of.
Perfect foil to my Thud...I simulated the air war over ‘Nam again. AEW warned VPAF MiG-21s were setting up a bounce of my Thud formation, we dumped tanks and bombs and went to ‘burners with fangs out to duck behind some terrain and convert to a more advantageous position. Was it Colonel Toon??? The Fishbed crested the rise, already in position to let loose his two AA-2s! At 600 knots, I pulled back hard to 7 Gs to go vertical as the green MiG flashed past. Still in full blower, but nose up 60 degrees, the speed bleeding off...but the MiG pulled around tight to convert to a stern aspect...I knew turning with him was suicide. He let loose an Atoll...flares, flares, flares! The missile bit off and went wide, smoke trailing. I tried to foil another shot by burying my nose, then pulling back hard once my speed built up, vision narrowing as the Gs built up. My elliptical path brought my nose through the vertical, then back down. Nose buried, I accelerated away...another shot! Frantically, I mashed out my remaining flares...whew! Using my superior low level speed, but running out of gas, I pulled around hard with him at 5 nm astern and put him in my sight...Sidewinder growling, I let the missile fly with a whoosh, following the trail until it inevitably exploded into the target...Colonel Toon was no more...
And this actually flies really, really well. Very realistically, don’t know if you did that intentionally or not, but this is how these type of builds ought to fly.
Love the Monte Carlo SS! What a ballsy car, a block with essentially the same body as the Grand National...”G body”, I think it was. One of my good friends in HS had one of these cars, ah, memories...
There’s something about this build I really like...perhaps it’s the shape of the vertical stab, or the way the dorsal spine is integrated into the overall shape of the jet. Maybe it’s the fun, but not ridiculous, flight performance. Whatever it is, nice work.
The vertical stab looks identical, especially that tab which sticks out a little. Measuring it for height, chord and thickness would clearly show it was identical and probably lifted. The horizontal stab does look different, but his does look like crap in comparison.
I have to agree, though, the double and triple down, then the absurd denunciation telling you that you never made a 747 for yourself would infuriate me as well.
But, that little nugget that it’s hard to win an argument against an ignorant person is true. It’s a scientific fact that people tend to double down even if they know they’re wrong, perhaps this guy changed the horizontal stab a bit, or even built a different one and is ignoring the horizontal stab...rationalizing that the cockpit was free to use. Now he’s defensive because he’s been caught.
Parts or whole sections is a bit of a grey zone...I’d personally not use whole sections, even manually copying them just seems wrong. However the SP “Rules” (which have been rewritten since the last time I read them) only state: “...Never upload a successor as an original design; give credit to the designer of its predecessor.”. Obviously, they added the successor system to help in this regard...but it only assuages the offended party, not because copying others’ creations is morally right. The rules do not discuss use of parts or sections or crediting other builders for anything but successors.
Ultimately, though, I agree with you; plagiarism can be a single sentence or single phrase buried in a whole book. Use of parts in SP is kinda the same idea. I’ve had entire planes of mine copied, but the mods are pretty good about spotting and removing them. I do tag mods if I recognize other posts which have been lifted, usually they’re entire builds and those are gone pretty quickly as well. To copy in whole or in part is at least uncool and, conceptually, “any duplication in whole or in part is considered plagiarism.”
Here’s what @WNP78 tells me regarding increasing gun range: “Well, decreasing the fire rate, increasing velocity, increasing lifetime.
The bullets use a "pool" system where an old bullet is reincarnated instead of making a new object, which helps performance.
And if the pool runs out, the oldest bullet gets killed and immediately reused.”
@WIZARD2017 you have it right, try setting the bullet’s last time a little longer, even though I agree that 6 seconds should be plenty. I’ll ask in my Discord chat to see if anyone has any further ideas on this issue. SP seems to restrict gun range to a mile, which is a problem.
Well, it certainly is an impressive bit of work, a lot of detail without totally overdoing the part count. It flies and handles relatively realistically, though acceleration is a tad on the swift side and it can climb out too steeply for a heavily loaded battle wagon—reducing the drag still further (there are still plenty of drag points) might have allowed you to lower the engine power and thus allowed a top speed while reducing the climb capability. Anyway, the armament is the biggest departure from RL, IMHO. The gun aiming controls are opposite from what they ought to be. The plane nose moves up when you pull back on the stick, as does sliding the trim slider down...all as in RL...but the gun aiming works opposite, making aiming almost impossible, though I just prefer adjusting the pylon turn to aim anyhow. Also, I wonder if increasing the life of the shells it fires would increase the range. The RL gunships can employs from around 7,000’ AGL making the slant range to the target about 3 miles. SP rounds die out beyond a mile, making a gunship build really difficult to use unless the shell lifetime is increased beyond that. I tried flying at 5,000’ above the target and spraying the convoy at 1.5 - 2 miles, but it didn’t work. Works pretty well down low, though—the destruction was impressive! Nice work.
F4 Test Report by Sir Thomas V. Brentprop, IV, DSO, DFC...Certainly a fast ship, acceleration is exelplary, much as a brace of hunting dogs pursuing a hare or fox on a fine hunting day! As stable and solid as one of the many majestic castles dotting the bucolic English countryside. The high speed makes this one a handful on a torp run...one has to remain precisely aware of the hazards accompanying the pursuit, otherwise he will find himself in the drink! Landing on the pitching deck of a flattop is a touchy affair...final is stable and well controlled at a stately 140 mph and approximately 20% power, fully configured, of course... the nose up attitude makes it difficult to spot the deck, old boy, but this is a common difficulty on shipborne prop fighters and one not unfamiliar to this old Seafire ace! In spite of all that, landing was a breeze, well done! Huzzah!
Love the smooth controls, the mostly all-moving tailplane, retro-ness and looks. Don’t like the unlimited fuel and it desperately needs trim, but I think your later builds fix the worse of these issues.
An interesting build, similar to the original F-4 in concept and borrowing more than a little from the Lightning. Could use trim to help in general and with landing on the boat. Fun to fly.
Well, it looks good...and we don’t see many/any Fury’s on the site. If I may suggest: next time make the flaps move down when you move the flap handle (VTOL slider) down, no airplane in the world (there may be exceptions, but I know of none) has flap controls reversed as they are here.
Javelin...I like it.
This is actually very good. Doesn’t accelerate too ridiculously fast, correct speed, looks good. Nice work!
Very stable on the torp run and like all great Brit aviation projects, severely under ranged!
Nice fairings.
+1This thing is ridonculous...those two 19 year old M1 crewmen I watched barreling across the tank practice area at Ft Carson at more than 60 mph—they reminded me of the two dudes who took Cameron’s Ferrari for a joyride in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off—would love this thing!
+3Interesting build of a little known Soviet type. I personally am always interested in ultra high altitude aircraft. I was very curious when I read in your description that it had set the altitude record in 1964, a few years after which both the U-2 (70,000’+) and the A-12 (SR-71 predecessor, 80,000’+) had flown and set records far in excess of 20,174 meters, which is only just over 66,000 ft. Heck, when I flew the U-2 myself, I exceeded 66,000’ on practically every single high altitude sortie. Anyway, nice build, sorry I cannot Spotlight it as you have far exceeded my own point total 👍!
+1Nice looking Folgore.
@X4JB my point exactly, I avoided thrashing you, I avoid thrashing anyone, it’s simply not polite.
@XJ4B Now that I actually have a few quiet minutes to compose some thoughts, I’ll attempt to explain this again. I apologize as I have not yet been successful in communicating clearly in a way you understand my intent. First, I have a lot of life experience and significantly more years on this earth, so my feedback is that using the term “you’re overrated” and then, even if it’s the next words, “I like your builds” is condescending. Especially coming from someone whose expertise is still coming along. I myself wouldn’t even use that phrase because it would deflate any ego out there, deserving or not. It’s called tact...there are other polite ways of providing feedback, especially in a public forum. And in this case, it’s not deserved. He’s not overrated, he’s been at this awhile, he produces quality builds that combine functionality, realism and fun. Lastly, I took these comments, as you perhaps should have, to another post because they were meant for you to consider privately, my intent is not to thrash anyone in public. It’s called “tact” and it’s an art many don’t know. If, after this, you still disagree, that’s fine, but please take it for what it’s worth.
@X4JB too much trouble to post something unlisted for this convo...just wanted a quick opp to provide a little feedback, then conversation goes away. And I read your original comment. But, anyway, you miss my point, simply saying “you’re overrated” is fairly insulting in itself, no matter the other comments surrounding...kind of like a s* sandwich. As for my HO, he’s not overrated, he has dozens and dozens of fine builds and improves with each new one. Some take the route of hundreds of crappy builds...he Isn’t one of them. We all have to make compromises with the build system here and I must fundamentally disagree with your assessment, his compromises strike a good balance between realism, functionality and fun.
Thanks, @Simpleplaner1945 ! This is quite an old build, but nice to see the occasional upvote for it. I see you’re newish around here, welcome.
@X4JB, concerning Boggy’s IAR 80, your comments are way off base and, for the sake of avoiding a big tit for tat exchange and public argument between the two of you, let me offer some friendly advice: You may have a couple of valid criticisms, but we all have to make a few compromises because the SP build template has its limitations we all need to deal with. But to say, “I don’t mean any disrespect, but you’re the most overrated builder on the site”...that’s not constructive criticism by any means and it’s essentially “dude, you shouldn’t be ranked so highly because your builds suck because they have the following problems.” Stick with the facts, be blunt if you would like with “these are the things you might do differently next time”, but for someone who used stock LG on his last airplane build, made a lot of sacrifices in the RL outline to integrate a hollow canopy area, whose flaps are not functional and whose flight model is so limited that even, I, a RL airline pilot and former military pilot with 4,500 hrs of flight time can’t even take off, I’d reconsider your approach to criticism and perhaps soften it a bit.
Just to make sure I’m not being unfair, your Bf isn’t bad, there are some very good bits there and you have a nice eye for shape and detail, but your approach to Boggy’s build is way off base for an airplane that actually mimics the RL thing pretty well. If you object, tell me how I’m wrong; for you, as with every enthusiastic builder on the site, I want to see all of us succeed. I think that if you soften your approach, choose not to come off the top rope, you’ll get a lot further, faster. Anyway, I’ll give you a chance to read this, perhaps respond, then I’ll delete it, no harm, no foul.
Two thumbs up!
@spefyjerbf well, there was no reason the gear would have collapsed on touchdown...that part was within normal parameters. However the right gear DID collapse when they left the runway, which is why the right wingtip ends up in the snow. What happened here is that the landing spoilers did not deploy as they should have on touchdown, that would have dumped the lift from the wing and produced the drag expected upon landing and the plane probably would have landed and exited normally. Sadly, what probably happened here is that the crew probably didn’t run the before landing checklist properly and didn’t arm the spoilers for landing.
+2Looks accurate, but are you sure that the horizontal stab moves differentially for roll? This is a mistake so many builders make...differential movement of the stabs or other than “normal” flight control movements simply wasn’t a thing until the F-16 and computerized flight controls came along, and really wasn’t present when this jet was initially designed (Etendard) in the ‘50s.
@Mercyaircraftcorporation the big problem with making full frame like this is probably weight. If you construct a 1:1 build using standard fuselage sections and techniques, the resultant weight is pretty close to the real thing. Adding a bunch of internal parts will multiply the weight for a section of your build. You’ll probably have to mass scale (and drag scale) all your parts to make sure your builds don’t tip the scales—if you care about such things. I see you’re using those modded fuel cells—which I hate, generally—but even with that, your A-20 still weighs in at +52,000 lbs., more than twice the real thing.
@Mercyaircraftcorporation sure...why not? I’m game, what are your long term plans?
Gracias, mi amigo, @RicardoAs1515
“A” for effort here, nice concept, though I personally like to see more attention devoted to nailing the shape and dimensions of a replica build. Do you have the DesignerSuite mod yet?
VERY clever use of the light that comes on when supersonic representing the shockwave.
Larger and lighter than the real thing, but a pretty decent representation of the Hun, nice work.
Not bad...better than mine from 3 years ago. Also, nice job on the camo paint. Not many people know the story of the heroism of the Argentine pilots...they deserved better than they got.
+2Wow, incredibly easy to land on the boat.
It accelerates ridiculously and the nose is oversized, but it really looks like an Eagle.
+1Flies well, very fun. I especially like the livery, a bit more fantastical, which is fun. Great details, such as the wheel wells, though I would have named the post “early USAAF (U.S. Army Air Forces) version”.
@Mustang51 me thinks you misunderstand...there was a comment a bit lower down in which a player commented that he had seen a twin engine B-24...I think they had mixed up the B-24 with the B-25.
@MrPorg137 @Flash0o0Green Looks like a B-17, kinda flies like a B-17, four engines, yup, just like a B-17...also like a B-24! Imagine that! The B-24 never, ever had 4 engines and there were never late war refits with 2 engines. The twin engine, twin tail, high wing U.S. bomber in WWII was the B-25, which is probably the plane you’re thinking of.
+1The reason why the plane pitches down is probably because the doors are on trim control, when you move the slider up (nose down), plane pitches down.
+1@bjac0 are you trying to publish the “maximum gross weight”, or the “maximum takeoff weight”?
What is “outboard loaded weight”?
Fun build, I like it. Seems to be modeled after the Super Sabre’s history and fuselage, with the F-102’s wing.
Perfect foil to my Thud...I simulated the air war over ‘Nam again. AEW warned VPAF MiG-21s were setting up a bounce of my Thud formation, we dumped tanks and bombs and went to ‘burners with fangs out to duck behind some terrain and convert to a more advantageous position. Was it Colonel Toon??? The Fishbed crested the rise, already in position to let loose his two AA-2s! At 600 knots, I pulled back hard to 7 Gs to go vertical as the green MiG flashed past. Still in full blower, but nose up 60 degrees, the speed bleeding off...but the MiG pulled around tight to convert to a stern aspect...I knew turning with him was suicide. He let loose an Atoll...flares, flares, flares! The missile bit off and went wide, smoke trailing. I tried to foil another shot by burying my nose, then pulling back hard once my speed built up, vision narrowing as the Gs built up. My elliptical path brought my nose through the vertical, then back down. Nose buried, I accelerated away...another shot! Frantically, I mashed out my remaining flares...whew! Using my superior low level speed, but running out of gas, I pulled around hard with him at 5 nm astern and put him in my sight...Sidewinder growling, I let the missile fly with a whoosh, following the trail until it inevitably exploded into the target...Colonel Toon was no more...
+6And this actually flies really, really well. Very realistically, don’t know if you did that intentionally or not, but this is how these type of builds ought to fly.
Pretty build, reminds me of a Connie crossed with a DH Dove...?
Love the Monte Carlo SS! What a ballsy car, a block with essentially the same body as the Grand National...”G body”, I think it was. One of my good friends in HS had one of these cars, ah, memories...
+1There’s something about this build I really like...perhaps it’s the shape of the vertical stab, or the way the dorsal spine is integrated into the overall shape of the jet. Maybe it’s the fun, but not ridiculous, flight performance. Whatever it is, nice work.
+2I like it, nice flight model.
Phabulous, simply phabulous. This one is on my favorites list.
+1Nice build, it turns fairly quickly, probably pulls 12 G or so. I feel bad for the pilot trainee, as he’ll be a lump of goo after his first flight...
+2The vertical stab looks identical, especially that tab which sticks out a little. Measuring it for height, chord and thickness would clearly show it was identical and probably lifted. The horizontal stab does look different, but his does look like crap in comparison.
I have to agree, though, the double and triple down, then the absurd denunciation telling you that you never made a 747 for yourself would infuriate me as well.
But, that little nugget that it’s hard to win an argument against an ignorant person is true. It’s a scientific fact that people tend to double down even if they know they’re wrong, perhaps this guy changed the horizontal stab a bit, or even built a different one and is ignoring the horizontal stab...rationalizing that the cockpit was free to use. Now he’s defensive because he’s been caught.
Parts or whole sections is a bit of a grey zone...I’d personally not use whole sections, even manually copying them just seems wrong. However the SP “Rules” (which have been rewritten since the last time I read them) only state: “...Never upload a successor as an original design; give credit to the designer of its predecessor.”. Obviously, they added the successor system to help in this regard...but it only assuages the offended party, not because copying others’ creations is morally right. The rules do not discuss use of parts or sections or crediting other builders for anything but successors.
Ultimately, though, I agree with you; plagiarism can be a single sentence or single phrase buried in a whole book. Use of parts in SP is kinda the same idea. I’ve had entire planes of mine copied, but the mods are pretty good about spotting and removing them. I do tag mods if I recognize other posts which have been lifted, usually they’re entire builds and those are gone pretty quickly as well. To copy in whole or in part is at least uncool and, conceptually, “any duplication in whole or in part is considered plagiarism.”
+1@WIZARD2017 think so.
Here’s what @WNP78 tells me regarding increasing gun range: “Well, decreasing the fire rate, increasing velocity, increasing lifetime.
The bullets use a "pool" system where an old bullet is reincarnated instead of making a new object, which helps performance.
And if the pool runs out, the oldest bullet gets killed and immediately reused.”
@WIZARD2017 you’re in SPMC? What’s your username? You have to excuse me, I don’t think we’ve actually talked in that forum.
@WIZARD2017 you have it right, try setting the bullet’s last time a little longer, even though I agree that 6 seconds should be plenty. I’ll ask in my Discord chat to see if anyone has any further ideas on this issue. SP seems to restrict gun range to a mile, which is a problem.
Well, it certainly is an impressive bit of work, a lot of detail without totally overdoing the part count. It flies and handles relatively realistically, though acceleration is a tad on the swift side and it can climb out too steeply for a heavily loaded battle wagon—reducing the drag still further (there are still plenty of drag points) might have allowed you to lower the engine power and thus allowed a top speed while reducing the climb capability. Anyway, the armament is the biggest departure from RL, IMHO. The gun aiming controls are opposite from what they ought to be. The plane nose moves up when you pull back on the stick, as does sliding the trim slider down...all as in RL...but the gun aiming works opposite, making aiming almost impossible, though I just prefer adjusting the pylon turn to aim anyhow. Also, I wonder if increasing the life of the shells it fires would increase the range. The RL gunships can employs from around 7,000’ AGL making the slant range to the target about 3 miles. SP rounds die out beyond a mile, making a gunship build really difficult to use unless the shell lifetime is increased beyond that. I tried flying at 5,000’ above the target and spraying the convoy at 1.5 - 2 miles, but it didn’t work. Works pretty well down low, though—the destruction was impressive! Nice work.
F4 Test Report by Sir Thomas V. Brentprop, IV, DSO, DFC...Certainly a fast ship, acceleration is exelplary, much as a brace of hunting dogs pursuing a hare or fox on a fine hunting day! As stable and solid as one of the many majestic castles dotting the bucolic English countryside. The high speed makes this one a handful on a torp run...one has to remain precisely aware of the hazards accompanying the pursuit, otherwise he will find himself in the drink! Landing on the pitching deck of a flattop is a touchy affair...final is stable and well controlled at a stately 140 mph and approximately 20% power, fully configured, of course... the nose up attitude makes it difficult to spot the deck, old boy, but this is a common difficulty on shipborne prop fighters and one not unfamiliar to this old Seafire ace! In spite of all that, landing was a breeze, well done! Huzzah!
+3Love the smooth controls, the mostly all-moving tailplane, retro-ness and looks. Don’t like the unlimited fuel and it desperately needs trim, but I think your later builds fix the worse of these issues.
I like your build style retro-futuristic cool inspired by the great 1950s jets...B-47 crossed with A-3/B-61 in this case. I’m following now.
An interesting build, similar to the original F-4 in concept and borrowing more than a little from the Lightning. Could use trim to help in general and with landing on the boat. Fun to fly.