@Jim1the1Squid well, that might make sense except there’s no such thing as a 20 mm machine gun...a .50 cal machine gun exists, and they fire solid ammo...but “20 mm” would make it a cannon firing explosive shells.
Well, I really like the effort shown on the HUD. It’s a bit faster than it ought to be, you might have dialed back the engine power and this would have also given it more realistic acceleration. It is a fictional build, though, so you have a bit more leeway than with a replica.
I’m sure they don’t perfectly correlate to any particular weapon, but have characteristics of several common ones. In my opinion, the wing gun is modeled after the .50 cal M2 Browning machine gun, which was widely used as the standard US aircraft gun until the advent of USAF aircraft cannon armament in the 1950s. But, it could also be modeled after the .30 cal M1919 Browning, which was also widely used as an aircraft gun through WWII. The “Minigun” is probably modeled after either the M134 Minigun or the M61 Vulcan...however, the M134 is a miniaturized M61 designed for standard NATO 7.62mm ammo and used mostly on helis, while the M61 is a 20 mm monster of a rotary cannon and the standard US aerial cannon. The in game Minigun is only slightly larger than the M134, but much heavier, while it’s much smaller and lighter than the M61. But I use the game’s Minigun for all my M61 applications, where I’ll scale it up to be about the right size. For all the in game weapons, they all seem to fire gun type rounds as they don’t inflict the type of damage associated with explosive cannon shells, so another thing I do is XML up the damage from the gun if they’re modeled after cannons.
@OC3LOT1142 oh, yeah...I haven’t tried this method to torpedo that carrier, because that requires holding a heading and releasing a torp before getting blown out of the sky.
@OC3LOT1142 yes it’s a nice feature of the game, though by the end of the war the Germans had radar directed flak/AAA. I’m sure laying the radar took a couple of moments to achieve and I’m pretty sure it was only effective against bombers flying in a predictable stream.
Then, to avoid the flak barrage, you need to change heading and altitude to avoid flying on the same trajectory for longer than about 5 seconds. Flak barrage seems to be aimed at an area and redirecting fire takes a few seconds.
@FairFireFight many jets which never operated from carriers have hooks in real life...F-16, F-15E, F-105, F-100, etc., just to name a few. The hooks are there to arrest the barrier cable at the end of a runway should a problem develop (hydraulics, landing gear, brakes, etc.). The cable system is, in the USAF, known as the BAK-12. Here’s an example of it in action, in this case arresting a landing F-16. So while you are correct in asserting, contrary to what @ProcessedPlAnEs says, that wing area doesn’t mean it cannot land on a carrier (look at the A-4), the T-2 never landed on a carrier, nor was it ever meant to do so. The hook is merely there in the event of an emergency landing on a conventional land-based runway.
In the airline world, there are many size variations in airliners. Airlines want to fill as many seats as possible on every route because that’s the most efficient way to fly an airplane. I fly 737-700s, 800s, 900s, 9ERs, and, someday, the MAX. Each airplane is filled as much as possible depending on the historical load for that route and the cost per seat mile is kept as low as possible in order to keep fares low and maximize profit. So it makes sense that one version of a large airplane may actually be smaller than the large version of a smaller jet.
Another great source are YouTube vids which show the workings of various components, I’ve discovered a lot of details like door sequence, light positions, LG extension and retraction speeds, the presence of spoilers and speed brakes.
Looks great. The Wikipedia article on the T-2 has the answers to all the questions you seek. I myself do a lot of research on my builds so that I get the details right. A lot of good info is available for free on the internet, and often I will actually buy a book on the subject build and read that.
In the future, if you’re unable to migrate to Windows, the only way to get what you want will be to download a build that has the reflectivity values assigned to one of the color blocks. Then, modify the build or delete everything except the cockpit and just start over while keeping the existing color palette. The drawback is whatever you post will appear as a successor to the original build.
Better graphics won’t really give you what you want, though, in spite of the remark below. I have a Windows Surface Pro and it has fantastic graphics, however I still modify the reflectivity values for my “glass” surfaces.
Yup, you can either use the mod or change the color section of the XML file directly. I think Android mod support is going away soon, which sucks, so you should consider saving up your pennies and buy the Windows version.
This is funny, I was curious whether the Beechcraft Outback was a RL plane...I hadn’t heard of it before, but your description was so convincing, I actually Googled it! Guess what was the first result in Google Images...your build! Nice.
Hey, the problem is the screenshot...green plane on a green background. Does not make your build look impressive at all. You already have the screenshot mod, you need to take advantage of it.
@asteroidbook345 even with those things, it would have been a failure as an air to air fighter. There was literally nothing which could have been done to adapt that jet to the mission the Navy needed it for.
@asteroidbook345 actually, the 111’s gear, though it looks narrow, really isn’t. It’s an enormous jet, so it’s a lot wider than it looks. The 111’s problem with landing on the boat was the view out the front over the nose while on final (not good), the poor engine spool up time and poor acceleration if the pilot had to go around. Plus, the 111 has a wing loading of around 150 lbs/sq ft...there’s absolutely no way it it could turn well enough to fight a close in fight. But, why did they think it would make a good shipboard fighter? Because McNamara was an “out of the box” thinker and, apparently, a genius—he was called, literally, a “whiz kid”, and knew better than all the subject matter experts—pilots—who were telling him otherwise.
@ChisP no, you’re thinking of the F-111B, which was the shipboard version of the F-111, it’s distinguishable in that it had a blunter nose. That airplane was developed at the insistence of Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who had run Ford Motor Company prior to his appointment as SecDef. McNamara insisted that the Department of Defense would save a lot of money if they used common airframes between the USAF and the Navy. As the AF was trying to field the 111 as it’s next interdictor bomber, McNamara insisted it be developed into the Navy’s F-4 replacement...for the role of fleet defense—essentially interception and air-to-air combat. The Aardvark is many things...but it’s not, and was never meant to be, a fighter...which the Navy discovered upon evaluation. I think 2 or 3 were built. When told that the 111 was thrust deficient as an air-to-air fighter, McNamara asked “well, how much more thrust does it need???” The Chief Of Naval Operations at the time replied, “There isn’t enough thrust in all Christendom to make a Navy fighter out of that airplane!” The B model was canceled shortly thereafter and the F-14 was developed as the Navy’s fleet defense fighter. The Air Force version, however, went on to fly a long and distinguished career, as an interdictor bomber, including in Vietnam and Gulf War I.
Only if you’re prepared to get 1/4 of the upvotes you currently get. Some vote on both form and function, but those are, sadly, the vast minority. I’ll upvote quite a few creations, though they might not be perfect, but I save my Spotlights for the very best builds and I definitely wring those out flying them before I do so. But to restrict upvotes to only those builds you’ve downloaded? That would put too much of the onus on the casual player.
Form wise it’s a great build...mold lines are correct, I absolutely love the polished aluminum of the old Pan Am livery. Can I volunteer to test fly your next build prior to release?
@CRJ900Pilot he found a document online from Lockheed which describes the various flight modes—VTOL opens the bays and the doors capture part of the updrafts and helps create a little lifting during VTOL mode.
@CapnCrunk well, I’m certainly glad you like it for what it is. I’ve considered putting the bomb bay in, it could be done, though it would take making the Center section out of individual panels and adding to the part count. There’s this movement around here to keep the part count as low as possible, which tends to be impossible if you want to add things like details,lettering, hear doors, etc. or not dumb down the build too much. Anyway, I made the decision early on to delete the bay since it was generally the extra tank later on and there are no nukes in SP anyway, though it would be cool to replicate those doors in game. I spent a lot of time trying to get the flying qualities just right. The SP physics model is a bit simplistic, but not bad if you work around a few things such as the unrealistically high parasite drag model. Though the vast, vast majority of people around here have absolutely zero experience with RL aircraft there are a few of us who do and try and make builds that fly realistically, so they do exist here and there.
@FreeRangedLemon also, I’ll need to see the build...at least the fuselage so that I know how big to build it and if it needs to work on a curved surface, etc.
@FreeRangedLemon well most of the Skyblazers’ lettering is standard USAF block letters. All except that script “Skyblazers” lettering, that is. Are you trying to do that script as well?
I really like it, accurate weights, realistic acceleration and top speed. It turns well, but not too well...but what am I doing wrong? I’m fighting the jet constantly as I have to hold constant back stick to keep the nose from falling.
The simplest answer is that you make a teaser just like you made this post. @BogdanX’s suggestions below are how you might stylistically craft a teaser so that you can better generate enthusiasm for your upcoming post. I created two teasers for a project of mine, the first is a very teasing teaser and the second shows more of the jet. In this way, you generate curiosity and buzz at first, then slake the desire to see more with the second. If it looks good, it will sell itself. Even more than teasers, though, is a good screenshot...these days, I believe it’s absolutely critical to use the screenshot mod in order to generate the most traffic to your post. BTW I really like your upcoming build, the proportions are very realistic. Be wary, though, of requiring mods for your post. So, while that sonic boom mod might look good in the screenshot, many, including myself, who download mostly to iOS (and shortly, to Android) won’t download and I typically won’t upvote a post I can’t fly.
A fair attempt at the F-104. This is one of the more difficult SP replicas, yet, so many attempt it. The RL jet had a blown wing system in order to bestow it with a little slower approach speed, though the real thing approached at well more than 200 mph. The blown flaps are impossible in SP—heck flaps don’t even work correctly in game, which makes it nigh impossible to accurately model the 104’s flying characteristics.
Interesting build, the F-8 was known as “The Last of the Gunfighters” and, in U.S. Navy service, pretty much exclusively an air to air fighter. So it’s interesting you’d put the rocket pods on it, though it does give it some air to ground capability in SP world.
@Jim1the1Squid well, that might make sense except there’s no such thing as a 20 mm machine gun...a .50 cal machine gun exists, and they fire solid ammo...but “20 mm” would make it a cannon firing explosive shells.
Well, I really like the effort shown on the HUD. It’s a bit faster than it ought to be, you might have dialed back the engine power and this would have also given it more realistic acceleration. It is a fictional build, though, so you have a bit more leeway than with a replica.
+3I’m sure they don’t perfectly correlate to any particular weapon, but have characteristics of several common ones. In my opinion, the wing gun is modeled after the .50 cal M2 Browning machine gun, which was widely used as the standard US aircraft gun until the advent of USAF aircraft cannon armament in the 1950s. But, it could also be modeled after the .30 cal M1919 Browning, which was also widely used as an aircraft gun through WWII. The “Minigun” is probably modeled after either the M134 Minigun or the M61 Vulcan...however, the M134 is a miniaturized M61 designed for standard NATO 7.62mm ammo and used mostly on helis, while the M61 is a 20 mm monster of a rotary cannon and the standard US aerial cannon. The in game Minigun is only slightly larger than the M134, but much heavier, while it’s much smaller and lighter than the M61. But I use the game’s Minigun for all my M61 applications, where I’ll scale it up to be about the right size. For all the in game weapons, they all seem to fire gun type rounds as they don’t inflict the type of damage associated with explosive cannon shells, so another thing I do is XML up the damage from the gun if they’re modeled after cannons.
+5@OC3LOT1142 oh, yeah...I haven’t tried this method to torpedo that carrier, because that requires holding a heading and releasing a torp before getting blown out of the sky.
@OC3LOT1142 yes it’s a nice feature of the game, though by the end of the war the Germans had radar directed flak/AAA. I’m sure laying the radar took a couple of moments to achieve and I’m pretty sure it was only effective against bombers flying in a predictable stream.
Then, to avoid the flak barrage, you need to change heading and altitude to avoid flying on the same trajectory for longer than about 5 seconds. Flak barrage seems to be aimed at an area and redirecting fire takes a few seconds.
Bombs! Of course. 30 to 60 degree dive angle makes bombing much easier. That and the fact they don’t actually shoot at you unless you shoot first!
I took out the Tiny Too with this thing. And I survived the egress and trip home because I discovered a weakness with the flak barrage.
@FairFireFight many jets which never operated from carriers have hooks in real life...F-16, F-15E, F-105, F-100, etc., just to name a few. The hooks are there to arrest the barrier cable at the end of a runway should a problem develop (hydraulics, landing gear, brakes, etc.). The cable system is, in the USAF, known as the BAK-12. Here’s an example of it in action, in this case arresting a landing F-16. So while you are correct in asserting, contrary to what @ProcessedPlAnEs says, that wing area doesn’t mean it cannot land on a carrier (look at the A-4), the T-2 never landed on a carrier, nor was it ever meant to do so. The hook is merely there in the event of an emergency landing on a conventional land-based runway.
+5Besides looking great, it flies great as well.
Nice.
Overall, I really like it. Nice, original idea for a build.
Very fun to fly and quite original, I like it.
In the airline world, there are many size variations in airliners. Airlines want to fill as many seats as possible on every route because that’s the most efficient way to fly an airplane. I fly 737-700s, 800s, 900s, 9ERs, and, someday, the MAX. Each airplane is filled as much as possible depending on the historical load for that route and the cost per seat mile is kept as low as possible in order to keep fares low and maximize profit. So it makes sense that one version of a large airplane may actually be smaller than the large version of a smaller jet.
+1Another great source are YouTube vids which show the workings of various components, I’ve discovered a lot of details like door sequence, light positions, LG extension and retraction speeds, the presence of spoilers and speed brakes.
Looks great. The Wikipedia article on the T-2 has the answers to all the questions you seek. I myself do a lot of research on my builds so that I get the details right. A lot of good info is available for free on the internet, and often I will actually buy a book on the subject build and read that.
Do you know how to access your XML files?
In the future, if you’re unable to migrate to Windows, the only way to get what you want will be to download a build that has the reflectivity values assigned to one of the color blocks. Then, modify the build or delete everything except the cockpit and just start over while keeping the existing color palette. The drawback is whatever you post will appear as a successor to the original build.
Better graphics won’t really give you what you want, though, in spite of the remark below. I have a Windows Surface Pro and it has fantastic graphics, however I still modify the reflectivity values for my “glass” surfaces.
Yup, you can either use the mod or change the color section of the XML file directly. I think Android mod support is going away soon, which sucks, so you should consider saving up your pennies and buy the Windows version.
Are you on iOS or Windows?
This is funny, I was curious whether the Beechcraft Outback was a RL plane...I hadn’t heard of it before, but your description was so convincing, I actually Googled it! Guess what was the first result in Google Images...your build! Nice.
Fun little plane.
Hey, the problem is the screenshot...green plane on a green background. Does not make your build look impressive at all. You already have the screenshot mod, you need to take advantage of it.
+1Point defense interceptor. It’s original, plus I’d like to do a zero length launch.
Kewl.
@asteroidbook345 exactly...then end up with one of the best shipboard fighters of all time, plus an awesome movie! Could you imagine Mav in a ‘Vark?!?
@asteroidbook345 even with those things, it would have been a failure as an air to air fighter. There was literally nothing which could have been done to adapt that jet to the mission the Navy needed it for.
@asteroidbook345 actually, the 111’s gear, though it looks narrow, really isn’t. It’s an enormous jet, so it’s a lot wider than it looks. The 111’s problem with landing on the boat was the view out the front over the nose while on final (not good), the poor engine spool up time and poor acceleration if the pilot had to go around. Plus, the 111 has a wing loading of around 150 lbs/sq ft...there’s absolutely no way it it could turn well enough to fight a close in fight. But, why did they think it would make a good shipboard fighter? Because McNamara was an “out of the box” thinker and, apparently, a genius—he was called, literally, a “whiz kid”, and knew better than all the subject matter experts—pilots—who were telling him otherwise.
Nice craftsmanship, I’m sorry I didn’t see this earlier.
@ChisP no, you’re thinking of the F-111B, which was the shipboard version of the F-111, it’s distinguishable in that it had a blunter nose. That airplane was developed at the insistence of Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who had run Ford Motor Company prior to his appointment as SecDef. McNamara insisted that the Department of Defense would save a lot of money if they used common airframes between the USAF and the Navy. As the AF was trying to field the 111 as it’s next interdictor bomber, McNamara insisted it be developed into the Navy’s F-4 replacement...for the role of fleet defense—essentially interception and air-to-air combat. The Aardvark is many things...but it’s not, and was never meant to be, a fighter...which the Navy discovered upon evaluation. I think 2 or 3 were built. When told that the 111 was thrust deficient as an air-to-air fighter, McNamara asked “well, how much more thrust does it need???” The Chief Of Naval Operations at the time replied, “There isn’t enough thrust in all Christendom to make a Navy fighter out of that airplane!” The B model was canceled shortly thereafter and the F-14 was developed as the Navy’s fleet defense fighter. The Air Force version, however, went on to fly a long and distinguished career, as an interdictor bomber, including in Vietnam and Gulf War I.
+3Nice, I like it.
T...’cause...why not?!!
Only if you’re prepared to get 1/4 of the upvotes you currently get. Some vote on both form and function, but those are, sadly, the vast minority. I’ll upvote quite a few creations, though they might not be perfect, but I save my Spotlights for the very best builds and I definitely wring those out flying them before I do so. But to restrict upvotes to only those builds you’ve downloaded? That would put too much of the onus on the casual player.
+2Form wise it’s a great build...mold lines are correct, I absolutely love the polished aluminum of the old Pan Am livery. Can I volunteer to test fly your next build prior to release?
+1@CRJ900Pilot he found a document online from Lockheed which describes the various flight modes—VTOL opens the bays and the doors capture part of the updrafts and helps create a little lifting during VTOL mode.
@CapnCrunk also, yes, I also read that story about Deke Slayton...I think that was in the Right Stuff, great story.
@CapnCrunk well, I’m certainly glad you like it for what it is. I’ve considered putting the bomb bay in, it could be done, though it would take making the Center section out of individual panels and adding to the part count. There’s this movement around here to keep the part count as low as possible, which tends to be impossible if you want to add things like details,lettering, hear doors, etc. or not dumb down the build too much. Anyway, I made the decision early on to delete the bay since it was generally the extra tank later on and there are no nukes in SP anyway, though it would be cool to replicate those doors in game. I spent a lot of time trying to get the flying qualities just right. The SP physics model is a bit simplistic, but not bad if you work around a few things such as the unrealistically high parasite drag model. Though the vast, vast majority of people around here have absolutely zero experience with RL aircraft there are a few of us who do and try and make builds that fly realistically, so they do exist here and there.
+1Where's the landing gear?
@FreeRangedLemon also, I’ll need to see the build...at least the fuselage so that I know how big to build it and if it needs to work on a curved surface, etc.
@FreeRangedLemon let me take a look at the script, I might be able to do something...hopefully it won’t take too many parts.
@FreeRangedLemon well most of the Skyblazers’ lettering is standard USAF block letters. All except that script “Skyblazers” lettering, that is. Are you trying to do that script as well?
@FreeRangedLemon what help do you need with the lettering?
20.3/205=.099. Huh.
I really like it, accurate weights, realistic acceleration and top speed. It turns well, but not too well...but what am I doing wrong? I’m fighting the jet constantly as I have to hold constant back stick to keep the nose from falling.
+1Funny, the stock landing gear on that F-8ish jet is one of the very few times I’ve ever seen that L.G. work on a build.
The simplest answer is that you make a teaser just like you made this post. @BogdanX’s suggestions below are how you might stylistically craft a teaser so that you can better generate enthusiasm for your upcoming post. I created two teasers for a project of mine, the first is a very teasing teaser and the second shows more of the jet. In this way, you generate curiosity and buzz at first, then slake the desire to see more with the second. If it looks good, it will sell itself. Even more than teasers, though, is a good screenshot...these days, I believe it’s absolutely critical to use the screenshot mod in order to generate the most traffic to your post. BTW I really like your upcoming build, the proportions are very realistic. Be wary, though, of requiring mods for your post. So, while that sonic boom mod might look good in the screenshot, many, including myself, who download mostly to iOS (and shortly, to Android) won’t download and I typically won’t upvote a post I can’t fly.
+1@KferoxL yay.
A fair attempt at the F-104. This is one of the more difficult SP replicas, yet, so many attempt it. The RL jet had a blown wing system in order to bestow it with a little slower approach speed, though the real thing approached at well more than 200 mph. The blown flaps are impossible in SP—heck flaps don’t even work correctly in game, which makes it nigh impossible to accurately model the 104’s flying characteristics.
+1Interesting build, the F-8 was known as “The Last of the Gunfighters” and, in U.S. Navy service, pretty much exclusively an air to air fighter. So it’s interesting you’d put the rocket pods on it, though it does give it some air to ground capability in SP world.
+1