Fun to fly, if a bit nose heavy. I really like the smoke effect on the engines, it’s great feedback for flying final approach to the runway. Very twitchy fully configured and close to the runway.
@JohnnyBoythePilot that’s because @Leehopard’s build used scales wing surfaces which weren’t actually in the tilting wing...the scaled down wings were in the fuse, I believe and he used additional wing surfaces hidden in the nose which acted as additional elevator surfaces...those were connected to the AG which tilted the variable incidence wing. The additional elevators in the nose tilted up as well and “increased” the total lift of the build...that’s a simplified explanation, but you get the idea. I’ll discuss it with him as we’re both in the SPMC Discord chat.
Nice attempt at the F-8. Unfortunately, SP dynamics and the reverse trim control makes it nearly unlandable with the wing incidence deployed. It lands fine with the wing faired.
Pretty good. I dislike the gyro greatly, though, never a fan of that technique. But it flies well, looks great and is pretty realistic for an SP build. Nice work.
@MobyDick it was easy on my mobile, where you’re having difficulty is that you’re probably over controlling it. Once you get it aligned with the runway, wings level and aimed at your landing point, just set 4% power, which will hold 200 mph on a reasonable glide slope. You don’t even have to change your bank angle once it’s aimed correctly and wings level. The trim should be set most of the way down (nose up) and you don’t have to mess with that either once set. Once over the runway and close to landing, simply chop the power and flare just a little by pulling straight back on the stick. Easy.
I have to ask: why in the world did you feel the need to put a gyro on it for landing? This has to be one of the easiest landing aircraft I’ve flown in SP...slow down to 200 mph, about 4% thrust and flare to land...dead easy.
The ultimate example of this design philosophy is the flying wing, which we haven't even discussed yet, but of which the K7's design reminds me. The B-2's ratio is 2.49:1(!) and it's 1950s predecessor, the YB-49 was even higher (note the wingspans were exactly equal--I can discuss that more in length later, if you're curious) at 3.24:1. Flying wings are considered the most efficient design yet, with a near total elimination of parasite drag and optimization of the lifting surface. In other words: aerodynamic efficiency. And not unique to any Russian designs, but driven purely by aerodynamic and physical realities, of which Russian designers were well aware.
The K7 has a ratio of 1.89:1, the DB2, can't find the dimensions, but I doubt it was more than 2:1...in any event, still a product of aerodynamic efficiency driven by low engine power and airfields that were smaller than modern airfields, often lacking even paved runways. The high ratio is not purely Russian design feature, as illustrated below, Voyager, U-2, C-47, and the B-18 all had this basic design...here's another contemporary design that had all the Russian drawbacks, low engine power, high weight, requirement to operate from the constrained airfields of the time, the Boeing XB-15. The XB-15's wingspan to length ratio is 1.7 to 1, close to even the K7's ratio. But that's the answer: low powered engines coupled with a requirement to lift higher weights from short airfields drive a long wing.
Besides, even if you did show me a DB with a higher than 1.5:1 ratio...even up to a 2:1 ratio, you asked the question, that's the answer: aerodynamic efficiency. It's the most efficient subsonic configuration possible, given that era's engine power. And it's not uncommon or specific to these series aircraft. Even today, some very high ratios exist, such as the Voyager around the world aircraft (3.8:1) or even the U-2 (1.67:1)...all in the name of aerodynamic efficiency.
@AircraftoftheRedStar, while good fuel storage capacity is a byproduct of a long, slender wing, that's not what drives that design. If that were true, early jet transports (707, Comet, etc.) would have had even more enormous wingspans due to enormous fuel consumption of early jets. Piston engines, on the other hand, consume much, much less fuel than jets...but provide much less power, thus driving an aerodynamically efficient wing, also known as a high aspect ratio wing in order to facilitate ops out of constrained airfields and at lower airspeeds. What record do you refer to...is it piston specific? I can guarantee you that record, if it's an all female distance record, has been surpassed many times by modern jet aircraft. 3,600+ miles isn't far...that's only a 7-8 hr leg in a modern airliner and we occasionally operate with all female crews, whether that's in the AF or the airlines. In the AF, that's a hop skip and a jump for a KC-135 or KC-10A and in the airlines, any aircraft larger than a 737 goes further than that hundreds of times a day.
They don't...that wingspan to length ratio is a product of 1930s technology and bomber/transport aircraft of that era generally had the same ratios. The Ilyushin DB 3's wingspan to length ratio is 1.5...the He 111's wingspan to length ratio is 1.38, fairly similar. The C-47's wingspan to length ratio is 1.5 as well. This configuration, a long slender wing, is aerodynamically efficient. Aircraft designed during the 1930s had fairly low (by today's standards) engine power, resulting in aircraft that cruised somewhere around 100 and 200 knots, a fairly low airspeed, but even at that low airspeed, those airplanes needed enough lift to stay airborne. Added to this, the need to takeoff in a reasonable distance with fairly sluggish acceleration drove that wing type. Even today with subsonic jet transport aircraft, it's not uncommon to have a wingspan longer than the fuselage, because a long, slender wing is still an efficient design at subsonic speeds...the 737 has a wingspan to length ratio right around 1:1, depending on type, while an Airbus 380 has a ratio of 1.1:1, where the wing is longer than the fuse. So, no, the DB series did not have ludicrously long wings, by any means.
I don’t remember that much about X Dimension’s original build, so forgive me if I’m effusive in my praise...this is really good, flies well and looks good. Original idea adds to the fun. It’s not perfect, but no creation is...8.5/10.
I’m impressed. The design is definitely 6th Gen...those jets, as this one, eliminate the vertical stab as a means of RCS reduction, so good design. Dynamics and flight model is great...it’s a little too fast for my taste, and the roll rate should be a little faster, but everything is close to being realistic...especially the turn rate. Interesting features here, like the realistic door actuation when firing missiles, I like that a lot. It could use more trim or trim separated from the flap controls. It’s very easy to land, which is great...no swerving on the runway and just set 18-20% thrust on final at 175 mph and land, nice! Overall, great fictional build, also, I noticed you changed the designator 😉
You discuss Gs and the effect on the human organism, but if you’re going to cover the entire subject, you need to discuss the “G strain” maneuver. Additionally, not only are pilots more susceptible to negative Gs, likewise aircraft are almost always built to pull more positive Gs than negative Gs, though it’s arguable that this is done because pilots simply endure positive G better than negative Gs.
@Hedero on the PC screen I don’t see the default trim controls either, but trim is there...go to the menu under the game menu, then “controls”, then “control settings”. Scroll down the “actions” menu until you see “trim up”, “trim down” and “reset trim”. You’ll see under the keypad controls something like “Keypad 7” and “Keypad 1”. Those are where your trim controls are located on the keyboard. You can also set up a joystick using this menu, as I do when I’m on PC. The only way you get the trim slider on the right side of a PC screen is if you set a rotator control to “trim”. For some reason, the default trim controls for PC do not incorporate the screen slider. Hope this helps.
Well, if you’re going to make that statement, you need to back it up more. I’ve looked into this and it may be fractionally higher, but it’s not multiples higher than in RL. You’ll need to consider that in RL, you would also burn more gas if you blast along in full AB all the time. Also, RL power delivery in jet engines is not linear as it is in SP; in RL half your power comes in the final 10% (I.e., between 90 and 100% power)...so to approximate cruise power in SP, it’s more accurate to measure your consumption at 50% power than at 90% power. I’ve done the cruise test a couple of times and I’ve found fuel consumption to be on the order of 1/2 to twice RL consumption. As a final point to this discussion, who the heck flies more than a few minutes in SP anyway? Simple Plane Landia is much smaller than RL, the day is much shorter and player attention span is limited. I bet only 10% of players even try to successfully land a build. As long as we can get from island to island and back, it’s probably good enough.
@HarryBen47 hey, vive le France and all that, my advice is: do what you want to, but the “C-47” designation is confusing to the English speakers on the site, which form the majority of people who will upvote your creation. By the way, c’est magnifique!
@HarryBen47 could be a named aircraft, as they often did during the Second World War...for example, the B-17 named the “Memphis Belle”, or the B-25 named “Tondelayo” or the P-51 named “Shangri La”...that’s what I thought you were advertising.
Yeah, might want to change it to something other than “C-47”...which indicates to most in the know that it’s a Skytrain. That’s what I expected to see when I opened this.
@Nerfaddict I appreciate it, I really do, but I really enjoy building...probably more so than flying any particular creation...so if I wanted one, I’d probably build it myself.
Beautiful Fishbed, it looks spot on. Speed is a bit slow, should be close to 700 mph at S.L...Mach 2 above 25,000’...this is easily fixed, though, if you use “dragScale=0” or “calculateDrag=False”. As you’re on Windows, you can do this easily through the XML files or by using the Overload mod. Also, it’s a bit mild on the pitch rate and the trim depends on extending the flaps. However, it’s a good job for someone just starting out, if you want someone to test fly your creations, let me know.
Fun to fly and looks good. What @Blue0Bull says regarding the front fuse is correct, though it’s not a fatal mistake...I didn’t overlay it on a 3 view (“blueprint”), so I don’t know how far off it is, though simply looking at it, I can tell it’s a little off. Some nice details here, good cockpit work and I really like the custom built AIM-9/AIM-120s (are they yours?...I really wish SP would overhaul the stock missiles to look more like the RL thing). You could have put the bay doors on a “FireWeapon” command so that they flick open as the missile leaves and close immediately after, just as they do in RL. No gun...hmmm... The fact one has to activate AG1 to have the flight surfaces move is an odd choice and I’ve seen a couple of comments regarding that issue below. Flight performance is more video game and less RL...it flies quite high (above 60,000’), but in AB it does 4,500 mph+(!), almost 3x what the RL can do. Since you only have 1,700 drag points, you could have tweaked the power to give it much more realistic acceleration and speed. Turns like crazy pills...the pilot is crushed to death with the Gs. At 1,000 mph, it can turn 360 degrees in 4 seconds. Again, not necessary by any stretch of the imagination...you’re talented enough to adjust the performance to something realistic, so I encourage you to do so on your next build. Plus it loops right after taking off if you’re not careful...again, adjust the pitch rate and it won’t have that tendency. All the drag seems to be on one corner of the glareshield...off center. That’s why it has autoroll at high speeds (don’t believe me?, fly really fast and high, then pull straight back...it rolls). Next time, put the drag on a part that’s absolutely dead center. As for playing with it...well, it IS ridiculously fun, I admit...I flew around plinking jets off left and right. The missiles look great and you even got the angled Sidewinders correct when deployed. It also lands well enough, which is good. When Philip of Macedonia sat on a throne, he had a servant whisper in his ear “someday you’ll be dead”, over and over again, in order to keep himself grounded. Great success on this one, the cool screenshot and subject really sell it, I encourage you to work on the flight model a little more next time, if you ever need a test flight, let me know. Keep up the good work and fly safe!
Interesting subject and build. I especially like the lettering and details, though not a fan of the trim/flap interconnect, especially given it needs nose up trim (and as a result, extended flaps) up to 200 mph. Why did you put those LG rotators floating below the nacelles?
Nice build and quite a pretty subject, you kept the part count low for those mobile users, though I’d encourage you to go all out on a more detailed version with full markings and a built up wing! Flight model isn’t bad, in fact no huge complaints there as nothing is unrealistic, most noticeable thing is that I’m sure the RL jet rolls much faster (short winged fighter type aircraft).
@Squirrel well, if you look at my comments again, you’ll see I equip my jets with over G capability...but not ludicrously so. I guess, to clarify, if a jet makes a 360 degree turn in 4 seconds, bad. If it does it in 15-18 seconds, though not 100% realistic, that’s acceptable for the reasons you’re thinking. Also, especially for fast jets up to 5th Gen, no the nose doesn’t necessarily track faster at lower speeds, you still need enough energy to get the nose around and overcome the stall buffet present for most symmetric wings. For example, a T-38 at pattern weights, clean, turns just fine at 300 knots indicated, but right after takeoff with 3.8K on the fuel gauge, anything above 3 Gs in the pattern will introduce the stall buffet. That’s why we practiced S.E. heavyweight delay patterns right after takeoff, so that we could recognize that there were limits, even at low speeds, on how effectively the nose tracked. It’s more of an “envelope” bounded by speed, weight and G inside which you operate. As long as you stay in the envelope, the nose tracks fine, outside the envelope, you will either low speed stall, high speed stall or over G.
Speed is life.
But, bottom line, I equip my builds with the capability to turn a bit faster than the published sustained turn rates because almost all jets can and do over G.
@jamesPLANESii 2.5 Gs is the G limit to which the jet is certified and where we operate the airplane. Realistically, if flown correctly, we experience only 1.5 Gs max during a typical flight. We’re also conscious of the Va (maneuvering speed), which is the max speed at which you can make a full and abrupt control input and not damage the aircraft. For the -700, that speed is 250 knots at sea level up to 298 knots at 31,000’ and the MAX has a Va of 292 knots at sea level up to 328 knots at 32,000’ feet. If going faster than those speeds, if a pilot were to pull abruptly full aft on the yoke, the jet WOULD pull more than 2.5 Gs and structural damage would likely result. So it’s a structural limit, as it is for most aircraft. For fighter aircraft, we never paid attention to “Va”, as that’s a civil term, instead we knew the G limits for the airframe...5.8 to 7.33 (symmetric) Gs for the T-38, depending on fuel weight...and had a G meter and we didn’t pull beyond the limits (yes, there was a bit of thinking going on while yanking around on the stick). We also knew from Section 5 of the -1 (flight manual) that .8-.95M was the “G overshoot” range where a small, fast pull of the stick would instantly over G the jet. That was structural as well and over Gs required, at min, an inspection to determine the jet wasn’t damaged.
@Jim1the1Squid well, I have, but I never had to worry about it at the altitudes the U-2 flew at. Anyway, the Oerlikon is not a 20mm machine gun, it’s a 20mm anti aircraft cannon...it fires explosive rounds, making it a cannon, not a machine gun. Geez, does anyone check their sources before making statements of fact???
Fun to fly, if a bit nose heavy. I really like the smoke effect on the engines, it’s great feedback for flying final approach to the runway. Very twitchy fully configured and close to the runway.
+1@EngineerOtaku I know, but read this little screed I wrote for a longer explanation...paragraph 3 about trim working in reverse.
+1@JohnnyBoythePilot that’s because @Leehopard’s build used scales wing surfaces which weren’t actually in the tilting wing...the scaled down wings were in the fuse, I believe and he used additional wing surfaces hidden in the nose which acted as additional elevator surfaces...those were connected to the AG which tilted the variable incidence wing. The additional elevators in the nose tilted up as well and “increased” the total lift of the build...that’s a simplified explanation, but you get the idea. I’ll discuss it with him as we’re both in the SPMC Discord chat.
+2Nice attempt at the F-8. Unfortunately, SP dynamics and the reverse trim control makes it nearly unlandable with the wing incidence deployed. It lands fine with the wing faired.
+2Nice work on a notoriously difficult subject. Flies quite well, I must say.
+1Pretty good. I dislike the gyro greatly, though, never a fan of that technique. But it flies well, looks great and is pretty realistic for an SP build. Nice work.
How do you turn off the gyro???
+1Nice Simple Spit.
@MobyDick it was easy on my mobile, where you’re having difficulty is that you’re probably over controlling it. Once you get it aligned with the runway, wings level and aimed at your landing point, just set 4% power, which will hold 200 mph on a reasonable glide slope. You don’t even have to change your bank angle once it’s aimed correctly and wings level. The trim should be set most of the way down (nose up) and you don’t have to mess with that either once set. Once over the runway and close to landing, simply chop the power and flare just a little by pulling straight back on the stick. Easy.
I have to ask: why in the world did you feel the need to put a gyro on it for landing? This has to be one of the easiest landing aircraft I’ve flown in SP...slow down to 200 mph, about 4% thrust and flare to land...dead easy.
The ultimate example of this design philosophy is the flying wing, which we haven't even discussed yet, but of which the K7's design reminds me. The B-2's ratio is 2.49:1(!) and it's 1950s predecessor, the YB-49 was even higher (note the wingspans were exactly equal--I can discuss that more in length later, if you're curious) at 3.24:1. Flying wings are considered the most efficient design yet, with a near total elimination of parasite drag and optimization of the lifting surface. In other words: aerodynamic efficiency. And not unique to any Russian designs, but driven purely by aerodynamic and physical realities, of which Russian designers were well aware.
The K7 has a ratio of 1.89:1, the DB2, can't find the dimensions, but I doubt it was more than 2:1...in any event, still a product of aerodynamic efficiency driven by low engine power and airfields that were smaller than modern airfields, often lacking even paved runways. The high ratio is not purely Russian design feature, as illustrated below, Voyager, U-2, C-47, and the B-18 all had this basic design...here's another contemporary design that had all the Russian drawbacks, low engine power, high weight, requirement to operate from the constrained airfields of the time, the Boeing XB-15. The XB-15's wingspan to length ratio is 1.7 to 1, close to even the K7's ratio. But that's the answer: low powered engines coupled with a requirement to lift higher weights from short airfields drive a long wing.
Besides, even if you did show me a DB with a higher than 1.5:1 ratio...even up to a 2:1 ratio, you asked the question, that's the answer: aerodynamic efficiency. It's the most efficient subsonic configuration possible, given that era's engine power. And it's not uncommon or specific to these series aircraft. Even today, some very high ratios exist, such as the Voyager around the world aircraft (3.8:1) or even the U-2 (1.67:1)...all in the name of aerodynamic efficiency.
@Nickr show me.
@AircraftoftheRedStar, while good fuel storage capacity is a byproduct of a long, slender wing, that's not what drives that design. If that were true, early jet transports (707, Comet, etc.) would have had even more enormous wingspans due to enormous fuel consumption of early jets. Piston engines, on the other hand, consume much, much less fuel than jets...but provide much less power, thus driving an aerodynamically efficient wing, also known as a high aspect ratio wing in order to facilitate ops out of constrained airfields and at lower airspeeds. What record do you refer to...is it piston specific? I can guarantee you that record, if it's an all female distance record, has been surpassed many times by modern jet aircraft. 3,600+ miles isn't far...that's only a 7-8 hr leg in a modern airliner and we occasionally operate with all female crews, whether that's in the AF or the airlines. In the AF, that's a hop skip and a jump for a KC-135 or KC-10A and in the airlines, any aircraft larger than a 737 goes further than that hundreds of times a day.
They don't...that wingspan to length ratio is a product of 1930s technology and bomber/transport aircraft of that era generally had the same ratios. The Ilyushin DB 3's wingspan to length ratio is 1.5...the He 111's wingspan to length ratio is 1.38, fairly similar. The C-47's wingspan to length ratio is 1.5 as well. This configuration, a long slender wing, is aerodynamically efficient. Aircraft designed during the 1930s had fairly low (by today's standards) engine power, resulting in aircraft that cruised somewhere around 100 and 200 knots, a fairly low airspeed, but even at that low airspeed, those airplanes needed enough lift to stay airborne. Added to this, the need to takeoff in a reasonable distance with fairly sluggish acceleration drove that wing type. Even today with subsonic jet transport aircraft, it's not uncommon to have a wingspan longer than the fuselage, because a long, slender wing is still an efficient design at subsonic speeds...the 737 has a wingspan to length ratio right around 1:1, depending on type, while an Airbus 380 has a ratio of 1.1:1, where the wing is longer than the fuse. So, no, the DB series did not have ludicrously long wings, by any means.
Very cool, and that's quite the description! Your platinum build, congrats!
+2T. I’ve built a Viggen myself, so I’m curious as to why yours isn’t flying correctly.
Pretty cool and all diesel-punky!
Nice, relatively simple build of an under appreciated gem of an airplane.
+1I don’t remember that much about X Dimension’s original build, so forgive me if I’m effusive in my praise...this is really good, flies well and looks good. Original idea adds to the fun. It’s not perfect, but no creation is...8.5/10.
I’m impressed. The design is definitely 6th Gen...those jets, as this one, eliminate the vertical stab as a means of RCS reduction, so good design. Dynamics and flight model is great...it’s a little too fast for my taste, and the roll rate should be a little faster, but everything is close to being realistic...especially the turn rate. Interesting features here, like the realistic door actuation when firing missiles, I like that a lot. It could use more trim or trim separated from the flap controls. It’s very easy to land, which is great...no swerving on the runway and just set 18-20% thrust on final at 175 mph and land, nice! Overall, great fictional build, also, I noticed you changed the designator 😉
+1You discuss Gs and the effect on the human organism, but if you’re going to cover the entire subject, you need to discuss the “G strain” maneuver. Additionally, not only are pilots more susceptible to negative Gs, likewise aircraft are almost always built to pull more positive Gs than negative Gs, though it’s arguable that this is done because pilots simply endure positive G better than negative Gs.
+1@Hedero, I do. Which airline...rather not say on an open forum like this.
@Hedero on the PC screen I don’t see the default trim controls either, but trim is there...go to the menu under the game menu, then “controls”, then “control settings”. Scroll down the “actions” menu until you see “trim up”, “trim down” and “reset trim”. You’ll see under the keypad controls something like “Keypad 7” and “Keypad 1”. Those are where your trim controls are located on the keyboard. You can also set up a joystick using this menu, as I do when I’m on PC. The only way you get the trim slider on the right side of a PC screen is if you set a rotator control to “trim”. For some reason, the default trim controls for PC do not incorporate the screen slider. Hope this helps.
Well, if you’re going to make that statement, you need to back it up more. I’ve looked into this and it may be fractionally higher, but it’s not multiples higher than in RL. You’ll need to consider that in RL, you would also burn more gas if you blast along in full AB all the time. Also, RL power delivery in jet engines is not linear as it is in SP; in RL half your power comes in the final 10% (I.e., between 90 and 100% power)...so to approximate cruise power in SP, it’s more accurate to measure your consumption at 50% power than at 90% power. I’ve done the cruise test a couple of times and I’ve found fuel consumption to be on the order of 1/2 to twice RL consumption. As a final point to this discussion, who the heck flies more than a few minutes in SP anyway? Simple Plane Landia is much smaller than RL, the day is much shorter and player attention span is limited. I bet only 10% of players even try to successfully land a build. As long as we can get from island to island and back, it’s probably good enough.
@HarryBen47 hey, vive le France and all that, my advice is: do what you want to, but the “C-47” designation is confusing to the English speakers on the site, which form the majority of people who will upvote your creation. By the way, c’est magnifique!
+2@HarryBen47 could be a named aircraft, as they often did during the Second World War...for example, the B-17 named the “Memphis Belle”, or the B-25 named “Tondelayo” or the P-51 named “Shangri La”...that’s what I thought you were advertising.
+1Yeah, might want to change it to something other than “C-47”...which indicates to most in the know that it’s a Skytrain. That’s what I expected to see when I opened this.
+2This is why aircraft that fly at high altitudes are pressurized.
+2@Nerfaddict I appreciate it, I really do, but I really enjoy building...probably more so than flying any particular creation...so if I wanted one, I’d probably build it myself.
A build or a RL attack jet?
My 1:1 scale F-105 dwarfs this thing...which initially I thought was a mistake, but it’s not! Just goes to show just how tiny the MiG-21 is.
Beautiful Fishbed, it looks spot on. Speed is a bit slow, should be close to 700 mph at S.L...Mach 2 above 25,000’...this is easily fixed, though, if you use “dragScale=0” or “calculateDrag=False”. As you’re on Windows, you can do this easily through the XML files or by using the Overload mod. Also, it’s a bit mild on the pitch rate and the trim depends on extending the flaps. However, it’s a good job for someone just starting out, if you want someone to test fly your creations, let me know.
Fun to fly and looks good. What @Blue0Bull says regarding the front fuse is correct, though it’s not a fatal mistake...I didn’t overlay it on a 3 view (“blueprint”), so I don’t know how far off it is, though simply looking at it, I can tell it’s a little off. Some nice details here, good cockpit work and I really like the custom built AIM-9/AIM-120s (are they yours?...I really wish SP would overhaul the stock missiles to look more like the RL thing). You could have put the bay doors on a “FireWeapon” command so that they flick open as the missile leaves and close immediately after, just as they do in RL. No gun...hmmm... The fact one has to activate AG1 to have the flight surfaces move is an odd choice and I’ve seen a couple of comments regarding that issue below. Flight performance is more video game and less RL...it flies quite high (above 60,000’), but in AB it does 4,500 mph+(!), almost 3x what the RL can do. Since you only have 1,700 drag points, you could have tweaked the power to give it much more realistic acceleration and speed. Turns like crazy pills...the pilot is crushed to death with the Gs. At 1,000 mph, it can turn 360 degrees in 4 seconds. Again, not necessary by any stretch of the imagination...you’re talented enough to adjust the performance to something realistic, so I encourage you to do so on your next build. Plus it loops right after taking off if you’re not careful...again, adjust the pitch rate and it won’t have that tendency. All the drag seems to be on one corner of the glareshield...off center. That’s why it has autoroll at high speeds (don’t believe me?, fly really fast and high, then pull straight back...it rolls). Next time, put the drag on a part that’s absolutely dead center. As for playing with it...well, it IS ridiculously fun, I admit...I flew around plinking jets off left and right. The missiles look great and you even got the angled Sidewinders correct when deployed. It also lands well enough, which is good. When Philip of Macedonia sat on a throne, he had a servant whisper in his ear “someday you’ll be dead”, over and over again, in order to keep himself grounded. Great success on this one, the cool screenshot and subject really sell it, I encourage you to work on the flight model a little more next time, if you ever need a test flight, let me know. Keep up the good work and fly safe!
+12It’s loud, it’s brash, driving it feels like holding a tiger by the tail, it even looks completely unsafe and...I LOVE IT! Great build!
+1Interesting subject and build. I especially like the lettering and details, though not a fan of the trim/flap interconnect, especially given it needs nose up trim (and as a result, extended flaps) up to 200 mph. Why did you put those LG rotators floating below the nacelles?
SimpleThud.
+1Nice build and quite a pretty subject, you kept the part count low for those mobile users, though I’d encourage you to go all out on a more detailed version with full markings and a built up wing! Flight model isn’t bad, in fact no huge complaints there as nothing is unrealistic, most noticeable thing is that I’m sure the RL jet rolls much faster (short winged fighter type aircraft).
+1@AdlerSteiner who are you talking about? BogdanX or TAplanes? I need a bit more context to understand your point.
@TAplanes no, it’s not. Does he even have an alternate account?
@jamesPLANESii yes, potentially...thats another SP limitation...over Gs aren’t simulated.
+2@Squirrel well, if you look at my comments again, you’ll see I equip my jets with over G capability...but not ludicrously so. I guess, to clarify, if a jet makes a 360 degree turn in 4 seconds, bad. If it does it in 15-18 seconds, though not 100% realistic, that’s acceptable for the reasons you’re thinking. Also, especially for fast jets up to 5th Gen, no the nose doesn’t necessarily track faster at lower speeds, you still need enough energy to get the nose around and overcome the stall buffet present for most symmetric wings. For example, a T-38 at pattern weights, clean, turns just fine at 300 knots indicated, but right after takeoff with 3.8K on the fuel gauge, anything above 3 Gs in the pattern will introduce the stall buffet. That’s why we practiced S.E. heavyweight delay patterns right after takeoff, so that we could recognize that there were limits, even at low speeds, on how effectively the nose tracked. It’s more of an “envelope” bounded by speed, weight and G inside which you operate. As long as you stay in the envelope, the nose tracks fine, outside the envelope, you will either low speed stall, high speed stall or over G.
Speed is life.
But, bottom line, I equip my builds with the capability to turn a bit faster than the published sustained turn rates because almost all jets can and do over G.
@jamesPLANESii 2.5 Gs is the G limit to which the jet is certified and where we operate the airplane. Realistically, if flown correctly, we experience only 1.5 Gs max during a typical flight. We’re also conscious of the Va (maneuvering speed), which is the max speed at which you can make a full and abrupt control input and not damage the aircraft. For the -700, that speed is 250 knots at sea level up to 298 knots at 31,000’ and the MAX has a Va of 292 knots at sea level up to 328 knots at 32,000’ feet. If going faster than those speeds, if a pilot were to pull abruptly full aft on the yoke, the jet WOULD pull more than 2.5 Gs and structural damage would likely result. So it’s a structural limit, as it is for most aircraft. For fighter aircraft, we never paid attention to “Va”, as that’s a civil term, instead we knew the G limits for the airframe...5.8 to 7.33 (symmetric) Gs for the T-38, depending on fuel weight...and had a G meter and we didn’t pull beyond the limits (yes, there was a bit of thinking going on while yanking around on the stick). We also knew from Section 5 of the -1 (flight manual) that .8-.95M was the “G overshoot” range where a small, fast pull of the stick would instantly over G the jet. That was structural as well and over Gs required, at min, an inspection to determine the jet wasn’t damaged.
+2@Nerfaddict now I fly the 737.
@Minecraftpoweer I think that one falls under the “delicious flying Minecraft pork chop” category!
Form follows function.
+5This is a pretty good replica of a very difficult aircraft to model, keep up the good work!
@Jim1the1Squid well, I have, but I never had to worry about it at the altitudes the U-2 flew at. Anyway, the Oerlikon is not a 20mm machine gun, it’s a 20mm anti aircraft cannon...it fires explosive rounds, making it a cannon, not a machine gun. Geez, does anyone check their sources before making statements of fact???