Though I’m going to avoid hyperbole here, I do like this build. Very efficient in your part count, nice, not ridiculous performance and accurate lines are the highlights of this build. It’s very enjoyable to toy around with on my iPhone. Nice work.
Not too bad, especially considering your level, as well as the patience with which you took to complete this correctly. There are a couple of things I would never have done, namely unlimited fuel—which I hate, but it’s a learning process.
I’m following now because some of these creations are amazing...surprised I hadn’t been following until now. Just promise me a couple of things: First, you’re not going to do that noobster unlimited fuel thing and 2. You’re going to wring out the flight model through extensive testing. If you need a tester, let me know.
@GhostHTX well, thanks! Transitioning into a new job is difficult even in the best of circumstances. Glad to see you’re back, can’t wait to see what you build next.
@Rhubarb1263 yeah, Overload is good for most things, but it doesn’t do colors. If you want that reflectivity, I guess you could download a build, like this one, that has that color/reflectivity, and delete the build itself while keeping the cockpit and the color palette should remain for you to use. Of course, when you post it, it’ll come up as a successor post.
This is quite good—the 106 has lots of difficult to replicate shapes, that triangular canopy, those angled intakes and forward fuse. You did a good job with building a clever facsimile but not going overboard with part count. Plus it’s fun. Next time you can lower the braking torque so it doesn’t skid and stop on a dime like it does. Nice work, perhaps we can put together the entire Century series you and I.
@WarHawk95 yeah, that’s what they called it in that 1950s movie about test flying, “Into the Unknown”, I think it was called. I should remaster this one using Designer Suite and revise the flight model, cause it actually doesn’t fly all that well, very prone to departing controlled flight.
Holy cow...nice Victor rendition, the prettiest of the V bombers, IMHO. On iOS, no less, with all the bizarre, very British shapes. Sure, I may agree with Bog’s comments below, but those issues don’t put me off of it at all, I really like it.
@Syabil well, that’s not the tutorial of how to land there...it’s a tutorial for custom wing shapes, which I used on this very build. I’m sure you know that and this is a bit of trolling... or Rick Rolling, I’m not really sure what your intent is. Anyhow, the blending for the intakes into the wings and then the taper to the trailing edge was very complex due to the fact I constructed “wheel wells”, which were black fuse sections which mimicked the wells, as well as actual landing gear door covers which cover the wells. The doors are only .0625 units thick, pretty thin, so the tolerances were small. I think I did pretty good work there. The triangle section leading to the trailing edge taper goes from the back of darker grey section to the control surfaces and the spoilers (the 5 darker patches on the top of the wing) sit on top. You can download the jet and take a look, then critique the build there, once you’ve taken a closer look at what I built...but who am I kidding? You won’t. Also, I’ve landed there before, but thanks anyway.
@Nerfenthusiast yeah, so try this: First, you shouldn’t land with any bombs or tanks and you should be less than 75% fuel remaining. This will make it a lot easier. As you slow, extend the flaps fully, trim all the way nose up (slider down), establish a 200-230 mph approach speed (depends on weight, heavier=faster) and carry about 20-25% power until over the end of the runway and close to landing. It’s also important to fly somewhere close to a 3 degree glide path—which is a normal glide path all aircraft fly, too steep and you’ll have too much sink, bounce and crash when you try and round out for the flare. Aim for the approach end of the runway—as you fly in the approach end should just get bigger in the windscreen and your landing point shouldn’t move. You can actually fly it pretty much hands off it you get it on a reasonable glide path, on speed and trimmed up. As you come over the threshold (end of the runway), you should be close to the runway, then chop the power to idle and just barely pull back on the stick to flare. What’s crucial, as on all high-performance aircraft, is properly configured, on speed, on glide path and with some power on (here about 20%). What will make it much easier is less weight. If you have the patience, burn down to almost empty, then try it. I really ought to make a vid on how to do this...I can do it every time, but I do this for a living.
@Nerfenthusiast looking at your comment about landing this thing, the F-105 and other Century series jets (F-100, 101, 102, 104, 106 and F-105 were notoriously difficult to land due to their high landing speeds and highly loaded wings. Making it worse, fighter pilots were coming off the T-33, F-80/84/86, which had comparatively benign landing characteristics. The F-100, which was the first of that generation, was known to do the “Sabre Dance”, which were the post stall gyrations close to the ground from getting too slow on final and usually resulting in fatal crashes. Incredibly, in spite of this, the first F-100A through C models didn’t even have flaps at all. Anyway, the T-38 was designed to fly and land like the Century series jets and I can tell you that thing landed like a rocket. As a result of better training, accident rates improved significantly. So, yes, the tricky landing behavior and small window for errors was also intentional. Glad you tested it fully.
Your presentation is excellent, you obviously like SP and you’re on Windows, so I highly recommend you get the Designer Suite Mod. That would help with the outlines and details on your builds.
@Nerfenthusiast so, which one, Holloman, Langley, Whiteman, Beale or Randolph, Vance, Laughlin or Columbus? Or Edwards? That’s the vast majority, I think.
By the way, this is how it works on planes in RL—unless it’s a relaxed stability jet like the F-16 in which computers help keep the plane under control.
In the Designer view, click on the little tool that looks like a little scale. You’ll see several colored lines appear. The red vertical line is the Center of Mass (CoM) line. The blue line is the Center or Lift (CoL) line. Weight forward—either fuel or dead weight—on your build should move the CoM line forward...towards the back should move it back. Wing position will move the CoL line. Make sure your red CoM line is slightly ahead of your blue CoL line, probably .25 to .5 SP units to yield good stability while being able to turn and lift the nose. If your build won’t turn or you can’t lift the nose, move your CoM line back towards the CoL line until it can—or increase your elevator surface. If your build tumbles, move the CoM forward by adding weight (fuel or dead weight) forward.
@Nerfenthusiast Like the real jet, this one does not have a 1:1 thrust to weight ratio, so “pulling up 90 degrees”, by which I assume you mean is straight up, and engaging the autopilot will lead to a loss of control and a flat spin, just like in real life. So I’m glad it did what it was supposed to do, I’ve seen that behavior a couple times—and I can recover given enough altitude. The real Thud did that in RL, if it did enter a loss of control event, it was usually recoverable. I spent a lot of time tweaking total drag to produce as realistic performance as possible without increasing engine power so that it would decelerate while climbing steeply. Most builders simply boost power which leads to completely unrealistic acceleration as well as no speed loss in the climb. Additional features besides that realistic acceleration were deceleration due to turning, and deceleration when retarding the throttle, but, unfortunately no one seemed to notice this at all—but nice Job on the recovery and thanks for the comment, glad you had fun with it.
Fairey building an export version that is then bought by the USN as their fleet defence (note how I used a “c”?)...this IS pure fantasy. A nice one nonetheless 😉
@BandicootNewSnipes here’s my F-4E from quite awhile ago...I didn’t have Designer Suite, but I think it turned out pretty well. Ignore the wings, but I used a couple of other techniques here and there you might appreciate. Feel free to use as necessary for your builds.
@BandicootNewSnipes please do. It’s a nice build and as you work on it, you can ask questions if you would like. For a wing build technique, please check out m latest build, my F-105, and you’ll see a better technique for realistically shaped wings.
I’m upvoting this primarily because this is great work for a new builder and you seem to be enthusiastic about improving and about SP in general. I would recommend, in addition to what has already been said below, that you study the Phantom’s flight model. Your build simply does not turn...if this was RL, it might be pulling 1 1/2 - 2 Gs. The RL Phantom can sustain 6 Gs and pulls a max of 8.5 Gs (most models). Though it doesn’t turn like an F-16, it doesn’t “not turn” as many here may tell you. Most builders in SP really tone down maneuverability of certain builds—such as the F-4—but it’s actually not realistic. It looks really good, though, and I’ll test fly any build you create, if you would like.
@Aerofy I actually approximated that buffet effect on my latest build, if you’d like to check it out here. When turning and pulling back on the stick, the glare shield will buffet...just like it does on a real jet with a symmetric airfoil.
Well, yes. It doesn’t take that much increase in Gs to make a big difference in AoA and stall speed. To maintain level flight at 60 degrees of bank (normal turns are 30 degrees), it takes 2 Gs and however many AoA units associated with that airfoil. Two Gs increases stall speed by about 40%, so if your plane stalls at 100 knots flying straight and level, it will stall at approximately 140 knots if flying a level 60 degree bank turn. When I flew the T-38, we would practice accelerated stalls—which is what this phenomenon is known as—we would start at around 300 knots and go into a simulated break turn. Then, you’d reef back on the stick while maintaining the level turn...the turn buffet would increase into a stall buffet, the nose would stop tracking around the turn and you are then into the accelerated stall. All that’s required to recover is to relax the pull to less than 2 Gs and the jet instantaneously recovers. But that buffet characteristic is inherent to symmetric airfoils. For most other cambered airfoils, an accelerated, or aggravated stall, as they’re also called, will lead to a snap roll and, eventually a spin. But relaxing the Gs on all airfoils lowers the AoA and lowers the level flight stall speed.
I like your Gee Bee, Mods are a double edged sword, though, they do what you might not otherwise be able to do, but those in iOS cannot download your creation. You can use Overload, Fine Tuner and Designer Suite, because those simple modify the XML files that are still readable on iOS.
An aircraft can be made to be “stall resistant”, but a wing will always stall. Ways to make an aircraft stall resistant include a canard, in which the canard stalls first because it is placed on the airframe at a higher angle (AoA), or is a different airfoil than the main wing. Canard stalls first, before the main wing, nose comes down, airspeed increases and stall is avoided—notice that a mini stall with the canard still occurs, but the main wing remains below its critical AoA. Or a wing may have slats that deploy at low speeds and increase the wing’s camber (curve), making it able to maintain flight at a lower airspeed. Or a design may simply not have the elevator authority to hold the nose up far and long enough to cause exceedance of the critical AoA...however, the end result of this is very poor maneuverability (most aircraft are like SP in that the CoG is ahead of CoM for stability) and the fact that if you go slow enough, sinking/mushing in the ground, albeit at a nose up angle. Still bad. However, every single airfoil out there will stall if the relative wind (often, the path of flight) is at too great an angle to the mean chord line of the wing.
@Aerofy nice explanation of what we call a “stall”. However, low airspeed doesn’t necessarily cause a stall. I can push over to 1/2 G and my stall speed will decrease significantly, so airspeed alone doesn’t cause a wing to stall, it is, as you first said, exceedance of the critical AoA. If I’m in that 1/2 G pushover at a speed below the published 1 G stall speed—the speed during level flight that will result in exceeding the critical AoA—I can be flying fine. But if I then pull the stick back and try and maintain level flight, the wing will immediately stall.
@TUNDERTEAM ok, no worries. Also the F-5 will make about 600 mph at 5,000’—full power without A/B and just over 760 mph (supersonic) with A/B. I only exceeded Mach once in the T-38 because we simply don’t fly around in burner, except takeoff and we certainly didn’t break the barrier over the U.S., at least not intentionally. The F-5E/F “Tiger II” version was significantly more powerful than the F-5A, F-5B and T-38, but it is significantly heavier and has a higher drag/better lifting wing. It’s faster, but not by too much. The T-38C, which is a rebuild of the T-38A has improved takeoff thrust, but is not supersonic capable due to the improved inlets for the low speed regime. Just deciding on a version of what you want to build will help nail down some of the characteristics you want out of your build. Also, nailing down some of the defining characteristics—such as long vs short wings, fuse shape, etc., will also help your build to at least remind your users of the jet you’re trying to emulate. Just my 2 cents.
Well, if you want a recommendation, all the versions of the F-5, like the T-38, which is essentially a two seat F-5, have fairly short wings. This one’s wings are fairly long, unless you plan on scaling them down.
@BenSkyWalker. You might try and use a resizable wheel as a gear, but I don’t know if there’s actually friction in game between a wheel and fuselage parts, so not sure that would work and I haven’t tried it myself yet as I’m not on my PC this morning. Also, which part is meant to be the diaphragm?
This thing is actually set up as an actual ASI...all that’s needed is a gear between the red pie wedge part and that red circle. Other schemes such as rotators which activate at different speeds, etc. kind of defeat the purpose of the build.
You know, this is not only an outstanding build in terms of accuracy, precision and flying qualities...it was funny reading @BogdanX’s comments, they were exactly what I was thinking...but I have to say, it’s a very elegant build, what you’ve managed to achieve with a relatively few parts is outstanding. Some people trying this build may have done some pretty stupid things, like, say, putting a hidden jet engine in the fuse to get the proper speed, unlimited fuel, overpowered engines, etc. I’ve seen all of that, but you manage to avoid anything stupid...very well done, IMHO!
@CRJ900Pilot it’s also my most realistically flying creation...so you ought to fly it. Be sure to read the instructions and ask any questions you might have.
1
What’s the role? Maritime patrol bomber?
Pretty build.
+1@NANOMAN thanks! I thought this one had slipped into oblivion forever!
First, and last, turboprop fighter...
Though I’m going to avoid hyperbole here, I do like this build. Very efficient in your part count, nice, not ridiculous performance and accurate lines are the highlights of this build. It’s very enjoyable to toy around with on my iPhone. Nice work.
+2Not too bad, especially considering your level, as well as the patience with which you took to complete this correctly. There are a couple of things I would never have done, namely unlimited fuel—which I hate, but it’s a learning process.
+1I’m following now because some of these creations are amazing...surprised I hadn’t been following until now. Just promise me a couple of things: First, you’re not going to do that noobster unlimited fuel thing and 2. You’re going to wring out the flight model through extensive testing. If you need a tester, let me know.
+1@GhostHTX well, thanks! Transitioning into a new job is difficult even in the best of circumstances. Glad to see you’re back, can’t wait to see what you build next.
@Rhubarb1263 yeah, Overload is good for most things, but it doesn’t do colors. If you want that reflectivity, I guess you could download a build, like this one, that has that color/reflectivity, and delete the build itself while keeping the cockpit and the color palette should remain for you to use. Of course, when you post it, it’ll come up as a successor post.
Use a canopy/clear part glue the next time, plastic cement tends to craze clear parts.
This is quite good—the 106 has lots of difficult to replicate shapes, that triangular canopy, those angled intakes and forward fuse. You did a good job with building a clever facsimile but not going overboard with part count. Plus it’s fun. Next time you can lower the braking torque so it doesn’t skid and stop on a dime like it does. Nice work, perhaps we can put together the entire Century series you and I.
@WarHawk95 yeah, that’s what they called it in that 1950s movie about test flying, “Into the Unknown”, I think it was called. I should remaster this one using Designer Suite and revise the flight model, cause it actually doesn’t fly all that well, very prone to departing controlled flight.
+1@WarHawk95 no worries, sorry about the part count, the insignia lettering took up a lot of parts.
@WarHawk95 YES!!! Try out the Thud, it’s my best build.
Holy cow...nice Victor rendition, the prettiest of the V bombers, IMHO. On iOS, no less, with all the bizarre, very British shapes. Sure, I may agree with Bog’s comments below, but those issues don’t put me off of it at all, I really like it.
+1@Syabil well, that’s not the tutorial of how to land there...it’s a tutorial for custom wing shapes, which I used on this very build. I’m sure you know that and this is a bit of trolling... or Rick Rolling, I’m not really sure what your intent is. Anyhow, the blending for the intakes into the wings and then the taper to the trailing edge was very complex due to the fact I constructed “wheel wells”, which were black fuse sections which mimicked the wells, as well as actual landing gear door covers which cover the wells. The doors are only .0625 units thick, pretty thin, so the tolerances were small. I think I did pretty good work there. The triangle section leading to the trailing edge taper goes from the back of darker grey section to the control surfaces and the spoilers (the 5 darker patches on the top of the wing) sit on top. You can download the jet and take a look, then critique the build there, once you’ve taken a closer look at what I built...but who am I kidding? You won’t. Also, I’ve landed there before, but thanks anyway.
Nice Tojo.
+1Very interesting build.
@Gestour ha! But you are correct.
@Nerfenthusiast yeah, so try this: First, you shouldn’t land with any bombs or tanks and you should be less than 75% fuel remaining. This will make it a lot easier. As you slow, extend the flaps fully, trim all the way nose up (slider down), establish a 200-230 mph approach speed (depends on weight, heavier=faster) and carry about 20-25% power until over the end of the runway and close to landing. It’s also important to fly somewhere close to a 3 degree glide path—which is a normal glide path all aircraft fly, too steep and you’ll have too much sink, bounce and crash when you try and round out for the flare. Aim for the approach end of the runway—as you fly in the approach end should just get bigger in the windscreen and your landing point shouldn’t move. You can actually fly it pretty much hands off it you get it on a reasonable glide path, on speed and trimmed up. As you come over the threshold (end of the runway), you should be close to the runway, then chop the power to idle and just barely pull back on the stick to flare. What’s crucial, as on all high-performance aircraft, is properly configured, on speed, on glide path and with some power on (here about 20%). What will make it much easier is less weight. If you have the patience, burn down to almost empty, then try it. I really ought to make a vid on how to do this...I can do it every time, but I do this for a living.
@Nerfenthusiast looking at your comment about landing this thing, the F-105 and other Century series jets (F-100, 101, 102, 104, 106 and F-105 were notoriously difficult to land due to their high landing speeds and highly loaded wings. Making it worse, fighter pilots were coming off the T-33, F-80/84/86, which had comparatively benign landing characteristics. The F-100, which was the first of that generation, was known to do the “Sabre Dance”, which were the post stall gyrations close to the ground from getting too slow on final and usually resulting in fatal crashes. Incredibly, in spite of this, the first F-100A through C models didn’t even have flaps at all. Anyway, the T-38 was designed to fly and land like the Century series jets and I can tell you that thing landed like a rocket. As a result of better training, accident rates improved significantly. So, yes, the tricky landing behavior and small window for errors was also intentional. Glad you tested it fully.
@GhostHTX thanks for the Spotlight! Where have you been?
Your presentation is excellent, you obviously like SP and you’re on Windows, so I highly recommend you get the Designer Suite Mod. That would help with the outlines and details on your builds.
@Nerfenthusiast well, did you like it then?
@Nerfenthusiast so, which one, Holloman, Langley, Whiteman, Beale or Randolph, Vance, Laughlin or Columbus? Or Edwards? That’s the vast majority, I think.
By the way, this is how it works on planes in RL—unless it’s a relaxed stability jet like the F-16 in which computers help keep the plane under control.
+1In the Designer view, click on the little tool that looks like a little scale. You’ll see several colored lines appear. The red vertical line is the Center of Mass (CoM) line. The blue line is the Center or Lift (CoL) line. Weight forward—either fuel or dead weight—on your build should move the CoM line forward...towards the back should move it back. Wing position will move the CoL line. Make sure your red CoM line is slightly ahead of your blue CoL line, probably .25 to .5 SP units to yield good stability while being able to turn and lift the nose. If your build won’t turn or you can’t lift the nose, move your CoM line back towards the CoL line until it can—or increase your elevator surface. If your build tumbles, move the CoM forward by adding weight (fuel or dead weight) forward.
+1@Nerfenthusiast Beale AFB, besides pilot training at Columbus AFB, MS, but that was a pretty long time ago.
@Nerfenthusiast Like the real jet, this one does not have a 1:1 thrust to weight ratio, so “pulling up 90 degrees”, by which I assume you mean is straight up, and engaging the autopilot will lead to a loss of control and a flat spin, just like in real life. So I’m glad it did what it was supposed to do, I’ve seen that behavior a couple times—and I can recover given enough altitude. The real Thud did that in RL, if it did enter a loss of control event, it was usually recoverable. I spent a lot of time tweaking total drag to produce as realistic performance as possible without increasing engine power so that it would decelerate while climbing steeply. Most builders simply boost power which leads to completely unrealistic acceleration as well as no speed loss in the climb. Additional features besides that realistic acceleration were deceleration due to turning, and deceleration when retarding the throttle, but, unfortunately no one seemed to notice this at all—but nice Job on the recovery and thanks for the comment, glad you had fun with it.
Fairey building an export version that is then bought by the USN as their fleet defence (note how I used a “c”?)...this IS pure fantasy. A nice one nonetheless 😉
+1I’m going to download both yours and Bog’s and fight them against each other. The battle will be legendary!
@BandicootNewSnipes here’s my F-4E from quite awhile ago...I didn’t have Designer Suite, but I think it turned out pretty well. Ignore the wings, but I used a couple of other techniques here and there you might appreciate. Feel free to use as necessary for your builds.
+1By the way, are you using the Designer Suite mod? Your outlines are very good.
@BandicootNewSnipes please do. It’s a nice build and as you work on it, you can ask questions if you would like. For a wing build technique, please check out m latest build, my F-105, and you’ll see a better technique for realistically shaped wings.
I’m upvoting this primarily because this is great work for a new builder and you seem to be enthusiastic about improving and about SP in general. I would recommend, in addition to what has already been said below, that you study the Phantom’s flight model. Your build simply does not turn...if this was RL, it might be pulling 1 1/2 - 2 Gs. The RL Phantom can sustain 6 Gs and pulls a max of 8.5 Gs (most models). Though it doesn’t turn like an F-16, it doesn’t “not turn” as many here may tell you. Most builders in SP really tone down maneuverability of certain builds—such as the F-4—but it’s actually not realistic. It looks really good, though, and I’ll test fly any build you create, if you would like.
+2@Aerofy I actually approximated that buffet effect on my latest build, if you’d like to check it out here. When turning and pulling back on the stick, the glare shield will buffet...just like it does on a real jet with a symmetric airfoil.
Well, yes. It doesn’t take that much increase in Gs to make a big difference in AoA and stall speed. To maintain level flight at 60 degrees of bank (normal turns are 30 degrees), it takes 2 Gs and however many AoA units associated with that airfoil. Two Gs increases stall speed by about 40%, so if your plane stalls at 100 knots flying straight and level, it will stall at approximately 140 knots if flying a level 60 degree bank turn. When I flew the T-38, we would practice accelerated stalls—which is what this phenomenon is known as—we would start at around 300 knots and go into a simulated break turn. Then, you’d reef back on the stick while maintaining the level turn...the turn buffet would increase into a stall buffet, the nose would stop tracking around the turn and you are then into the accelerated stall. All that’s required to recover is to relax the pull to less than 2 Gs and the jet instantaneously recovers. But that buffet characteristic is inherent to symmetric airfoils. For most other cambered airfoils, an accelerated, or aggravated stall, as they’re also called, will lead to a snap roll and, eventually a spin. But relaxing the Gs on all airfoils lowers the AoA and lowers the level flight stall speed.
Great insight on this. The realization that the wing generates drag when moving and thus a push force was something everyone else had missed.
+2I like your Gee Bee, Mods are a double edged sword, though, they do what you might not otherwise be able to do, but those in iOS cannot download your creation. You can use Overload, Fine Tuner and Designer Suite, because those simple modify the XML files that are still readable on iOS.
@Rhubarb1263 you can modify the color and reflectivity values in the aircraft XML files...are you on PC by any chance?
An aircraft can be made to be “stall resistant”, but a wing will always stall. Ways to make an aircraft stall resistant include a canard, in which the canard stalls first because it is placed on the airframe at a higher angle (AoA), or is a different airfoil than the main wing. Canard stalls first, before the main wing, nose comes down, airspeed increases and stall is avoided—notice that a mini stall with the canard still occurs, but the main wing remains below its critical AoA. Or a wing may have slats that deploy at low speeds and increase the wing’s camber (curve), making it able to maintain flight at a lower airspeed. Or a design may simply not have the elevator authority to hold the nose up far and long enough to cause exceedance of the critical AoA...however, the end result of this is very poor maneuverability (most aircraft are like SP in that the CoG is ahead of CoM for stability) and the fact that if you go slow enough, sinking/mushing in the ground, albeit at a nose up angle. Still bad. However, every single airfoil out there will stall if the relative wind (often, the path of flight) is at too great an angle to the mean chord line of the wing.
+1@Aerofy nice explanation of what we call a “stall”. However, low airspeed doesn’t necessarily cause a stall. I can push over to 1/2 G and my stall speed will decrease significantly, so airspeed alone doesn’t cause a wing to stall, it is, as you first said, exceedance of the critical AoA. If I’m in that 1/2 G pushover at a speed below the published 1 G stall speed—the speed during level flight that will result in exceeding the critical AoA—I can be flying fine. But if I then pull the stick back and try and maintain level flight, the wing will immediately stall.
+2@TUNDERTEAM ok, no worries. Also the F-5 will make about 600 mph at 5,000’—full power without A/B and just over 760 mph (supersonic) with A/B. I only exceeded Mach once in the T-38 because we simply don’t fly around in burner, except takeoff and we certainly didn’t break the barrier over the U.S., at least not intentionally. The F-5E/F “Tiger II” version was significantly more powerful than the F-5A, F-5B and T-38, but it is significantly heavier and has a higher drag/better lifting wing. It’s faster, but not by too much. The T-38C, which is a rebuild of the T-38A has improved takeoff thrust, but is not supersonic capable due to the improved inlets for the low speed regime. Just deciding on a version of what you want to build will help nail down some of the characteristics you want out of your build. Also, nailing down some of the defining characteristics—such as long vs short wings, fuse shape, etc., will also help your build to at least remind your users of the jet you’re trying to emulate. Just my 2 cents.
+1Well, if you want a recommendation, all the versions of the F-5, like the T-38, which is essentially a two seat F-5, have fairly short wings. This one’s wings are fairly long, unless you plan on scaling them down.
+1@BenSkyWalker. You might try and use a resizable wheel as a gear, but I don’t know if there’s actually friction in game between a wheel and fuselage parts, so not sure that would work and I haven’t tried it myself yet as I’m not on my PC this morning. Also, which part is meant to be the diaphragm?
+1This thing is actually set up as an actual ASI...all that’s needed is a gear between the red pie wedge part and that red circle. Other schemes such as rotators which activate at different speeds, etc. kind of defeat the purpose of the build.
+1You know, this is not only an outstanding build in terms of accuracy, precision and flying qualities...it was funny reading @BogdanX’s comments, they were exactly what I was thinking...but I have to say, it’s a very elegant build, what you’ve managed to achieve with a relatively few parts is outstanding. Some people trying this build may have done some pretty stupid things, like, say, putting a hidden jet engine in the fuse to get the proper speed, unlimited fuel, overpowered engines, etc. I’ve seen all of that, but you manage to avoid anything stupid...very well done, IMHO!
+2@CRJ900Pilot it’s also my most realistically flying creation...so you ought to fly it. Be sure to read the instructions and ask any questions you might have.
@CRJ900Pilot well, thanks! I was wondering where you were 😏