@GorillaGuerrilla the link is incomplete and doesn’t take me anywhere when I paste it into the browser. Can you repost and I’ll take a look? To create links in comments or posts, use the following format: [whatever text you want to use for your link] (https//webpagelink.com). Be sure to delete the space between the “]” and “(“ and the link will be created when you post your comment.
@GorillaGuerrilla yes, IMHO, just to make a WAG, SP physics is around 80% accurate, but only 65% of the time. Don’t bother with the area rule test as there aren’t any supersonic effects in game, which is why swept wings make no performance difference. One of the biggest shortfalls, in my opinion. I’d love to see the rapid increase in drag in the transonic range, but as there isn’t even real “airflow” in game, so it’s not unexpected. The way drag and lift increase in game is because the SP environment simply increases drag and lift as a part or wing moves “faster”. It’s a calculation, not actual airflow, which is why putting one part behind another doesn’t block the “airflow”. Sadly, no way to fix it either.
@GorillaGuerrilla yes, I am well aware of burying wings to simulate lifting body effects. Useful for emulating builds such as F-14, F-16 or Space Shuttle. Also useful in simply using a built up wing instead of the stock block wings available. But this post doesn’t really have much to do with that, it’s really about the different characteristics between the flat, semi-symmetrical and symmetrical wings in SP; my point being there is much more modeled in game than people realize in those options. However, to your point: You’re not the first to maintain that there are brilliant builders who can defy the in game physics model. I say you can’t really do so, though you can exploit the characteristics and gaps of the in game modeling to achieve some interesting and unexpected characteristics. Burying a wing in a fuse and having it still able to produce lift is a perfect example of a gap in the SP physics model that can be exploited—that’s not something that happens IRL. IRL, lifting bodies don’t conceal a wing inside, their very shape produces left as they move through the air at an angle (AoA). FT and good old fashioned XML editing gives the ability to manipulate attributes of individual parts, but it doesn’t allow anyone to alter the basic code of the physics engine. All the code is there and all the variables are being crunched to produce a rational result. A good example of this is drag reduction/deletion—the builder may be causing the physics engine to use “0” as the drag value on that part, but the physics engine is always there in the background, working as expected. So, I’m not sure what you mean by “brilliant” people defying SP physics because you can’t—the SP physics code will always be operational in game.
@GorillaGuerrilla do you understand how that happens in real life and how would you propose to replicate that behavior? If you’d like an explanation, I can answer any questions you might have.
Very nice…I’m a big fan of this era, which I feel can be accurately modeled within SP. If I were to make any suggestions, I would suggest the trim have more nose up authority. Full trim on your model only begins to be effective at around 325 KIAS, it really ought to be effective as low as you can get it or even as low as stall speed…because that’s more accurate to RL. But performance is in the ballpark and it’s super fun to fly, particularly when gunning targets out of the sky.
@Korzalerke not everything is on Wikipedia…however, I just happened to be reading the Wikipedia entry on the Grumman F4F Wildcat this evening and read that the following that’s related to our conversation: “ On 16 December 1940, the XF4F-3 prototype, BuNo 0383, c/n 356, modified from XF4F-2, was lost under circumstances that suggested that the pilot may have been confused by the poor layout of fuel valves and flap controls and inadvertently turned the fuel valve to "off" immediately after takeoff rather than selecting flaps "up". This was the first fatality in the type.” There were several accidents in those years attributable to poor ergonomics, happily we’ve come a long way since then.
In the 1930s, aircraft design was extremely rapid, with designers learning a lot about aerodynamics, power plants and human factors, which encompasses not only life support, but cockpit ergonomics. When the B-17 first flew, it did so without checklists, despite being a very complex aircraft…and the first prototype crashed when the test pilots forgot to remove the gust locks before takeoff. So, checklists were introduced. Besides that, the U.S. Army Air Corps began evaluating cockpit and control ergonomics and came to the conclusion that, in the stress of combat, crews needed to be able to reflexively interpret instruments and actuate controls without having to think about it. Part of the solution was to make landing gear handles shaped like a wheel at the end of a lever and a flap handle shaped like a little wing, etc. Previous to that, there might be switches or buttons which looked like any other switch but performed different functions…very confusing. It also helped when the crew couldn’t see the switch if they lost lighting at night, or due to smoke in the cockpit, etc. In fact, even today, some pilots are given what’s called a “blind cockpit check” to ensure they know the position of all the important controls by feel alone. That standardization exists to this day and that’s why most aircraft today have a landing gear handle that’s shaped like a lever with a wheel at the end and flap levers shaped like little wings.
No, Mach number depends only on temperature, it has nothing to do with air density or air pressure or anything else besides temperature. And lower density altitude is better for performance, not higher. Thicker air means engines that put out more power (more available air) and wings produce more lift. But don’t take my 30+ years of aviation experience flying high performance aircraft, just read the Wikipedia article on “Mach Number”. The graph about 1/3 of the way down shows the Mach (speed of sound) vs. temperature relationship.
No, you’re incorrect. And since I came up with the formula @edensk is quoting, let me explain: Mach varies based on temperature, NOT air density. The reason why Mach varies with altitude is that it generally gets colder with higher altitude, that’s why Mach 1 is achieved at a slower TAS at higher altitudes. And that’s why your very rough TAS/343 formula gets further and further off with altitude. But SP doesn’t have temperature incorporated, only altitude and airspeed, so Mach doesn’t vary correctly. But there’s a workaround I came up with: I assumed a standard day temp at S.L. (around 15 degrees Celsius), with a standard temperature decrease of 2 degrees C per 1,000 ft/330 meters. So, I simply modeled the TAS to Mach variation based on standard day temperatures with increasing altitude. For example: I know that it should be 10 degrees C colder at 5,000’ than it is at sea level and the Mach 1 TAS speed is proportionally slower. The conversion factor is .003937 per meter of altitude. There are a couple of problems with my formula: When you get to the Tropopause at around 50,000’ (again, the altitude varies with latitude, from 34,000’ (at the poles) to 56,000’ (equator), so I just used a mid-latitude height) temperature remains constant as you continue to climb. It then gets colder again as you leave the Tropo. That’s why I clamped the correction at 43 m/s…it’s good for a Mach calculation from sea level to around 60,000’ for a mid-latitude location. Two of the four major SP islands seem temperate, so I think that’s a fair assumption. The second issue is that it assumes standard day conditions/temperature…hardly ever the case IRL, where it’s most often colder or hotter, but again, had to model using assumed temperature and since we use “standard day” as the starting point for our calculations in the flying world, also a good assumption, I think. Last, I’ve used that formula on both my Su and F-20 to model shock wave blanking of the horizontal stab, so you’ll find it on the rotators for the concealed surfaces on both those builds. It works fairly well, I think.
@ELGATOGAMEPLAYS try this build: MiG I-270. It’s rocket powered using the in-game Hellfire missile. I’m on iOS right now, but take a look how he uses the detacher to attach the missile to the build and the FT expression he uses on the rocket. I suggest you figure out how to limit the time and power the rocket puts out. Good luck.
@Sparky6004 stick aft during the takeoff roll…rule #1 for a taildragger. That should help keep control until the rudder is effective. Also, you’ll have to anticipate yaw/roll coupling here, though it doesn’t work in SP the way it does IRL. Last, short, sharp inputs on the rudder, don’t overcontrol it. I’ll admit, probably harder to do than IRL, it’s not impossible to takeoff or land. And it’s way, way easier to do in cockpit view than in external view…allows you to pick up the roll excursions earlier, though directional control is difficult with only the corners of the runaway visible until liftoff. But the RL plane was notoriously difficult in the takeoff and landing phase and I absolutely guarantee you’d crack up a RL Bf if you were thrown into the cockpit and told to takeoff, so it’s all part of the experience.
Well, I think you met your design objectives. It’s a close SP representation of the RL bird…IMHO; but how would I really know? Never flew a Bf myself and the game interface is markably different than sitting in a loud, shaking and tight cockpit with an actual stick, throttle and rudder pedals. But, all that aside, the performance is in the ballpark (acceleration is probably a little too fast and the 109K was heavy on the ailerons at speed, something that’s difficult to emulate in SP). It’s frightening, but not impossible, to take off and land safely. So it’s a nice 270-part representation, cockpit work is good (gee, I wish SP would give us a B&W attitude indicator) and it’s fun to fly…nice work!
No, published performance numbers are generally in TAS, as they reflect what the aircraft is capable of achieving across the ground in a no wind situation. IAS varies too much with altitude and is a much less meaningful for evaluating aircraft performance. However, IAS is what pilots use to fly their aircraft as aircraft flight characteristics generally conform to IAS…the IAS at which an aircraft stalls is generally consistent, the stall speed being fairly close at S.L. as compared to higher altitudes…as that’s the speed the wing and instrumentation “sees” and reacts to.
It’s called the North American FJ-1 Fury. Bill Gunston in his book (remember actual books?), “Fighters of the Fifties” states far more conclusively that the P-51 was the starting point, though it was redesigned to a certain extent to accommodate a jet engine and new fuselage. Wing and tail were highly similar to the Mustang’s. But the real reason why the FJ-1 or most turbojet conversions of WWII aircraft (one could argue in favor of the F-84, but the P-47 design was totally thrown out during the P-84’s development) were so quickly phased out was that straight wings were rapidly superseded by the superior swept wing designs.
Really a brilliant build. I could go on about the flight model, which is pretty good, but the imaginative way in which you use fuselage slicing to craft the insignia, camouflage, use of text boxes for the flap and engine panel details, etc., is the real highlight. Very neat and accurate looking.
Certainly an ambitious effort with a ridiculously high part count. Fairly laggy on my iPhone 11, but it’s flyable. Flying characteristics are fairly good, not terribly unrealistic, from what I could do on my iPhone. It’s in the ballpark on weights, though the wing area is about twice that of the RL plane, even considering SP counts the horizontal stab area and RL stats do not. So, the 30 lb/sq ft wing loading imparts a shorter takeoff distance and more sprightly handling than a max gross Superfort probably would have. However, its maneuverability is stately, as it should be, as best I could assess on my lagging iPhone. Some beautiful reproduction work…though I’m disappointed you left the stars and bars off the wings, I absolutely love the nose art. A little overboard on “drop test”, do that test from a quarter that height IRL and you’d break that airplane in half and drive the struts through the cockpit and engine nacelles. Detail work is impressive, build is fun to play with and effort is evident. Here’s something I found that you may find interesting: B-29 gunnery training film.
Beautiful build, very realistic flight model, roll rate is spot on the RL plane, level flight acceleration is like the RL plane, not great, but acceptable. But it sure gains speed fast in the dive, just like the RL fighter, which was an advantage of the Warhawk in combat against its adversaries. Nice work, on my favorites list!
Also, amazing flight dynamics. Just with a real jet, I can get on the correct 3 degree glide path, set a power to hold an airspeed (about 10% and 160-165 KIAS on final), adjust the trim to maintain the aim point and flare as I come over the threshold. You are one of a very, very few builders who makes a build that behaves properly during approach and landing. You also use the correct symmetric airfoil, the smallish fuel load reflects the RL Lightning’s limitations and it behaves as closely to its RL counterpart as is probably possible in SP. Now in my “favorites” list…bravo!
Some thoughts on your build:
- I would recommend you out all lights on a single AG, with the landing lights having a dual input with landing gear extension; when the AG is activated and the L.G. is extended, landing lights come on and they extinguish with gear retraction. Fairly simple FT input and they would operate as IRL, for the most part. In peacetime, at night, aircraft are/were flown with all lights on for collision avoidance and in combat/exercises, flown “blacked out”. Doing it this way allows your build to be almost completely accurate while keeping lights on a single AG.
- The performance difference between prop only and using the four jets was 230 mph up to a dash speed of 400 mph…170 mph difference, so the jets greatly added to the performance; which recommend you not downplay the difference between prop only performance and prop plus jet performance.
- Just put all 4 jets on a single AG…there’s no scenario IRL where these guys would use only two of the four jets. They were used during takeoff, the bomb run/combat dash and to escape the thermonuclear blast. In any time f those cases, you don’t want to half-a** it.
- Described as “sitting on the porch and flying your house”, the B-36 wasn’t spry…however it WAS functional as an aircraft. If I try and fly this build and am unable to turn and align with the runway for landing, it’s not realistic. So, don’t make it too sluggish.
- I doubt that hydraulics weren’t considered powerful enough for the B-36’s flight controls. I’d like to see a citation and would argue that viewpoint with whomever said it…most aircraft hydraulic systems operate around 3000 PSI, far, far, far more powerful than what a pilot can operate manually. In 737 sim training, I’ve practiced manual reversion landings and I can tell you, it’s a bear to control the jet without the hydraulic system. The positive trade off, though, is the decreased complexity, weight and dependence on the hydraulic system, which is handy in combat as enemy action can easily take out the hydraulics. Yes, the B-36 did use balance bays and control tabs, as does the KC-135 even today, so what was achieved was the best one could expect from a manual system, but the trade off is heavy control forces. So much so that today, they just don’t make large aircraft which primarily depend on manual control surfaces.
- Anyway, looks like an ambitious effort, good luck!
Flies fairly well. Max roll rate is a tad bit slower than IRL, but not far off. Takeoff distance and acceleration are in the ballpark, as is pitch rate. It doesn’t like to slow down and I’d have put more effect on the speed brakes, but it’s controllable. The build’s empty weight is close to the RL spec, but, overall, this thing is pretty lightly loaded, as if for a training sortie “around the flagpole”, instead of maxed out for a combat drop. TRs can deploy airborne, as with the RL jet. I was able to perform a tactical arrival and stop it in 4,000’, first try. With practice, I’m sure I could do it in 3,000’, nice.
@BangRou the autoroll is most noticeable at lower speeds, up to around 300 knots or so, though it’s still present above that speed. If you simply level the wings and let the stick go (zero aileron input), it rolls slowly to the right. You can really see it if you level the wings at slower speeds, then pull straight back…it definitely rolls right when it should pull straight. I don’t know if it’s due to the pod being right of centerline and making your build slightly right side heavy, having uneven drag or having a wonky mirrored connection, it could be any of those things. It’s slight, though and I’m sure it’s not a bother to most, though I definitely tend to notice those things.
I also have to say the JDAMs and pod tracking are excellent. Not sure if that’s totally your creation or if someone has figured this out before, but that one feature makes this worth the price of admission alone.
Way better than I expected. The acceleration on takeoff is a bit high and the energy loss is a bit low, but nothing is ridiculously unrealistic. Roll rate, turn rate and S.L. speeds are in the ballpark, the build itself looks pretty good (would have done the root trailing edges differently, but it looks like a Viper). My biggest comments are that I would also suggest you to use the symmetric airfoil instead of the Cessna wing, which would help your performance numbers greatly. Also, it has a little auto-roll, yuck!; but for all that, this is a very good build, especially given your 560 points.
Your first build, congratulations. Yes, SP is different than SR. I noticed on your build that you tell the user to “spawn on final approach”; you don’t say why, but probably because your build is very difficult to take off normally. This is because the rear landing gear is at the extreme end of the fuselage, making it impossible to rotate the jet when it reaches flying airspeed. To fix this, you can move the rear landing gear forward, where it sits just aft of the CoM, so that your build has a better pivot point around which to rotate and leave the runway. This solution would still leave it with the bicycle style landing gear arrangement, but it’s not impossible to simply keep the wings level while it runs down the runway. Hope this helps and welcome to SP!
Flies beautifully. So many builders think that large/heavy jets turn or pitch so slowly that they’re nearly impossible to fly. However, if you think about it, if a RL jet was engineered to be unmaneuverable, or at least not maneuverable enough to be controllable, they’d be impossible to fly. Your build, though it never was built IRL, flies quite realistically…it flies like a heavy jet, you wouldn’t want to do a Split-S or roll this thing, but the pilot can certainly easily correct his flight path and land the jet in the center of the runway. Another highlight is the fact that your landing gear doesn’t glitch out, in spite of the fact this build is way more than a million pounds gross. I’m going to have to download to my PC and investigate how you’ve managed this.
Build more and build your own stuff (though that Soviet Star does look great!) instead of modifying others’ work, don’t try to host any challenges, you don’t have credibility yet. But mostly, build more! Also, something I noticed is that when I started building replicas, my skills got much better, faster. Try a few replicas (OF AIRCRAFT) and I’m sure you’ll get a lot better as well.
An excellent, well executed build. The build itself captures the Kikka’s shape accurately, to include the outlines of the flying surfaces, which took some work judging by the number of parts used in that area. The flight model is good, about as good as can be expected while relying on the basic game physics and drag reduction. The wing area, fuel quantity, weights, wing loading and thrust are all accurate, so that results in a build that flies close to the RL jet. Acceleration (like all early jets, slow), takeoff roll, roll rate, pitch and turn rates and general performance at low altitude is close to RL, IMHO. The high altitude speed is too fast, I think because you used indicated airspeeds and not TAS to reflect the RL’s published “speeds”. However, the published RL performance figures are almost always for TAS, not IAS, and the difference in TAS and IAS is large at high altitude. At low altitude/S.L., where the difference in TAS and IAS is small, your build has a close to RL max level TAS, which is good. The fast airspeed at high altitude is also a result of the SP atmosphere model, which results in speeds being too slow at S.L. and too fast at high altitude. The only way I know of around this is to use a FT formula on the engines that decreases thrust as you climb, increases thrust with speed (ram air effect) or uses a speed brake that deploys when the jet’s max speed is reached. Everyone has their preferences, though I would suggest also use your speed brakes to simulate landing gear drag, as extended L.G. creates a lot of drag when extended. You use the concealed air brakes here with “Airbrake”, though the RL jet didn’t have any speed brakes and none are modeled on your build, which is really odd! What results is: Pull back on the throttle and the jet slows drastically…perhaps the biggest miss for your build. Last difference in what you did and what I would suggest is: More trim authority! Trim effectiveness (clean) is lost below 210 KIAS and though extending the flaps restores trim authority, that’s not how trim effectiveness works IRL. Trim is almost always effective to well below stall airspeed, whether clean or “dirty”. But, very nice build, my write up is long, but I wanted to give a complete evaluation because, regardless of any suggestions I make, this is an excellent build that feels realistic, flies nicely and is fun to fly. Keep up the good work!
The setup and activation is a little strange, it doesn’t appear to be a selectable weapon and no aiming reticle appears, which I think is throwing off players (see comments), but it does work. Simply select air to ground or air to air, press on the “0x G-30R”, which will highlight and press fire. You need to guess where the first rounds will go without the aiming reticle, which appears only while firing. Very effective, though.
It’s really too bad we can’t use the in-game unguided rockets as air-to-air weapons. I’ve tried, but there’s no way to do so. Though they will fire, fly and hit airborne objects (a not-quite-impossible task), there’s no way to select them for use using the AIR-TO-AIR button, there’s no air-to-air target illumination and there’s no green aiming reticle, making them almost impossible to use effectively, which is too bad as when they hit, they make an impressively enormous explosion. IRL, the F-89, F-86D and F-102 had an aiming computer for these weapons and simply allowing the in game rockets to use the air to air key would be similar to how they were used IRL. Instead, we’re stuck with recreating the Battle of Palmdale.
You failed to mention the most important parts of her history: Along with the Akagi, Hiryu, Soryu, Shokaku and Zuikaku, one of the IJN carriers in the attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December, 1941. Sunk at the Battle of Midway in June, 1942.
Well, was going to heap a lot of praise onto this build, until I realized it has zero cockpit view. That’s too bad, because it’s nearly impossible to land it well without the view from the cockpit.
@MrShenanigansSP sure, what are you building?
Another thing to note here is the amount of drag created by each airfoil, which isn’t represented directly by a graph here. Usually, an airfoil’s performance is represented by 2 curves, known as the Lift/Drag curves, or L/D. However, you can indirectly infer the amount of drag created by the amount of lift created…the more lift created, the more drag is created, always. This is important as one can demonstrably see that the symmetric airfoil creates far less drag at higher speeds than the other two airfoil shapes.
+3Mach Calculator
@GorillaGuerrilla the link is incomplete and doesn’t take me anywhere when I paste it into the browser. Can you repost and I’ll take a look? To create links in comments or posts, use the following format: [whatever text you want to use for your link] (https//webpagelink.com). Be sure to delete the space between the “]” and “(“ and the link will be created when you post your comment.
@GorillaGuerrilla yes, IMHO, just to make a WAG, SP physics is around 80% accurate, but only 65% of the time. Don’t bother with the area rule test as there aren’t any supersonic effects in game, which is why swept wings make no performance difference. One of the biggest shortfalls, in my opinion. I’d love to see the rapid increase in drag in the transonic range, but as there isn’t even real “airflow” in game, so it’s not unexpected. The way drag and lift increase in game is because the SP environment simply increases drag and lift as a part or wing moves “faster”. It’s a calculation, not actual airflow, which is why putting one part behind another doesn’t block the “airflow”. Sadly, no way to fix it either.
@GorillaGuerrilla yes, I am well aware of burying wings to simulate lifting body effects. Useful for emulating builds such as F-14, F-16 or Space Shuttle. Also useful in simply using a built up wing instead of the stock block wings available. But this post doesn’t really have much to do with that, it’s really about the different characteristics between the flat, semi-symmetrical and symmetrical wings in SP; my point being there is much more modeled in game than people realize in those options. However, to your point: You’re not the first to maintain that there are brilliant builders who can defy the in game physics model. I say you can’t really do so, though you can exploit the characteristics and gaps of the in game modeling to achieve some interesting and unexpected characteristics. Burying a wing in a fuse and having it still able to produce lift is a perfect example of a gap in the SP physics model that can be exploited—that’s not something that happens IRL. IRL, lifting bodies don’t conceal a wing inside, their very shape produces left as they move through the air at an angle (AoA). FT and good old fashioned XML editing gives the ability to manipulate attributes of individual parts, but it doesn’t allow anyone to alter the basic code of the physics engine. All the code is there and all the variables are being crunched to produce a rational result. A good example of this is drag reduction/deletion—the builder may be causing the physics engine to use “0” as the drag value on that part, but the physics engine is always there in the background, working as expected. So, I’m not sure what you mean by “brilliant” people defying SP physics because you can’t—the SP physics code will always be operational in game.
@GorillaGuerrilla do you understand how that happens in real life and how would you propose to replicate that behavior? If you’d like an explanation, I can answer any questions you might have.
Very nice…I’m a big fan of this era, which I feel can be accurately modeled within SP. If I were to make any suggestions, I would suggest the trim have more nose up authority. Full trim on your model only begins to be effective at around 325 KIAS, it really ought to be effective as low as you can get it or even as low as stall speed…because that’s more accurate to RL. But performance is in the ballpark and it’s super fun to fly, particularly when gunning targets out of the sky.
+3@SkyJayTheFirst ah, ok, got it, thanks. I really should try War Thunder again.
@SkyJayTheFirst what does “SUCC” mean?
@Cheems no, I was not planning on building a Ju-288.
Excellent build. Even the use of the semi-symmetric airfoil is a good choice. Plus, it tends to track pretty straight in the air. Quite lifelike.
@Korzalerke not everything is on Wikipedia…however, I just happened to be reading the Wikipedia entry on the Grumman F4F Wildcat this evening and read that the following that’s related to our conversation: “ On 16 December 1940, the XF4F-3 prototype, BuNo 0383, c/n 356, modified from XF4F-2, was lost under circumstances that suggested that the pilot may have been confused by the poor layout of fuel valves and flap controls and inadvertently turned the fuel valve to "off" immediately after takeoff rather than selecting flaps "up". This was the first fatality in the type.” There were several accidents in those years attributable to poor ergonomics, happily we’ve come a long way since then.
+5In the 1930s, aircraft design was extremely rapid, with designers learning a lot about aerodynamics, power plants and human factors, which encompasses not only life support, but cockpit ergonomics. When the B-17 first flew, it did so without checklists, despite being a very complex aircraft…and the first prototype crashed when the test pilots forgot to remove the gust locks before takeoff. So, checklists were introduced. Besides that, the U.S. Army Air Corps began evaluating cockpit and control ergonomics and came to the conclusion that, in the stress of combat, crews needed to be able to reflexively interpret instruments and actuate controls without having to think about it. Part of the solution was to make landing gear handles shaped like a wheel at the end of a lever and a flap handle shaped like a little wing, etc. Previous to that, there might be switches or buttons which looked like any other switch but performed different functions…very confusing. It also helped when the crew couldn’t see the switch if they lost lighting at night, or due to smoke in the cockpit, etc. In fact, even today, some pilots are given what’s called a “blind cockpit check” to ensure they know the position of all the important controls by feel alone. That standardization exists to this day and that’s why most aircraft today have a landing gear handle that’s shaped like a lever with a wheel at the end and flap levers shaped like little wings.
+6@Erc90F4RU easily correctible.
Why the hinged canopy? As anyone who's watched "Empire of the Sun" will know, the D-model Mustang had a sliding canopy. But why? Well, rear-hinged ("clamshell") canopies tend to fly off in the slipstream and most aircraft of this era could fly with the canopies open, hence the sliding canopies. Though the earlier pre-"Malcolm Hood" P-51s (As, Bs and C models) had a canopy where the left-hand side dropped down to allow access into the cockpit, as well as sliding panels, they were rapidly replaced by sliding canopies with the "Malcolm Hood" and bubble canopy versions. Even the earlier B-47s had a sliding canopy, which the pilot could open in flight (at lower speeds and altitudes, of course), though it was later replaced by a clamshell-type canopy.
Lots of great techniques here, on my favorites list!
+2No, Mach number depends only on temperature, it has nothing to do with air density or air pressure or anything else besides temperature. And lower density altitude is better for performance, not higher. Thicker air means engines that put out more power (more available air) and wings produce more lift. But don’t take my 30+ years of aviation experience flying high performance aircraft, just read the Wikipedia article on “Mach Number”. The graph about 1/3 of the way down shows the Mach (speed of sound) vs. temperature relationship.
+3No, you’re incorrect. And since I came up with the formula @edensk is quoting, let me explain: Mach varies based on temperature, NOT air density. The reason why Mach varies with altitude is that it generally gets colder with higher altitude, that’s why Mach 1 is achieved at a slower TAS at higher altitudes. And that’s why your very rough TAS/343 formula gets further and further off with altitude. But SP doesn’t have temperature incorporated, only altitude and airspeed, so Mach doesn’t vary correctly. But there’s a workaround I came up with: I assumed a standard day temp at S.L. (around 15 degrees Celsius), with a standard temperature decrease of 2 degrees C per 1,000 ft/330 meters. So, I simply modeled the TAS to Mach variation based on standard day temperatures with increasing altitude. For example: I know that it should be 10 degrees C colder at 5,000’ than it is at sea level and the Mach 1 TAS speed is proportionally slower. The conversion factor is .003937 per meter of altitude. There are a couple of problems with my formula: When you get to the Tropopause at around 50,000’ (again, the altitude varies with latitude, from 34,000’ (at the poles) to 56,000’ (equator), so I just used a mid-latitude height) temperature remains constant as you continue to climb. It then gets colder again as you leave the Tropo. That’s why I clamped the correction at 43 m/s…it’s good for a Mach calculation from sea level to around 60,000’ for a mid-latitude location. Two of the four major SP islands seem temperate, so I think that’s a fair assumption. The second issue is that it assumes standard day conditions/temperature…hardly ever the case IRL, where it’s most often colder or hotter, but again, had to model using assumed temperature and since we use “standard day” as the starting point for our calculations in the flying world, also a good assumption, I think. Last, I’ve used that formula on both my Su and F-20 to model shock wave blanking of the horizontal stab, so you’ll find it on the rotators for the concealed surfaces on both those builds. It works fairly well, I think.
+2@ELGATOGAMEPLAYS yes, FT, “Funky Trees”, is what SP calls it’s XML programming “language”.
+1@ELGATOGAMEPLAYS try this build: MiG I-270. It’s rocket powered using the in-game Hellfire missile. I’m on iOS right now, but take a look how he uses the detacher to attach the missile to the build and the FT expression he uses on the rocket. I suggest you figure out how to limit the time and power the rocket puts out. Good luck.
Really beautiful work, probably your best. On my favorites list.
+3@Sparky6004 stick aft during the takeoff roll…rule #1 for a taildragger. That should help keep control until the rudder is effective. Also, you’ll have to anticipate yaw/roll coupling here, though it doesn’t work in SP the way it does IRL. Last, short, sharp inputs on the rudder, don’t overcontrol it. I’ll admit, probably harder to do than IRL, it’s not impossible to takeoff or land. And it’s way, way easier to do in cockpit view than in external view…allows you to pick up the roll excursions earlier, though directional control is difficult with only the corners of the runaway visible until liftoff. But the RL plane was notoriously difficult in the takeoff and landing phase and I absolutely guarantee you’d crack up a RL Bf if you were thrown into the cockpit and told to takeoff, so it’s all part of the experience.
+3Well, I think you met your design objectives. It’s a close SP representation of the RL bird…IMHO; but how would I really know? Never flew a Bf myself and the game interface is markably different than sitting in a loud, shaking and tight cockpit with an actual stick, throttle and rudder pedals. But, all that aside, the performance is in the ballpark (acceleration is probably a little too fast and the 109K was heavy on the ailerons at speed, something that’s difficult to emulate in SP). It’s frightening, but not impossible, to take off and land safely. So it’s a nice 270-part representation, cockpit work is good (gee, I wish SP would give us a B&W attitude indicator) and it’s fun to fly…nice work!
+2SMH…not “P-51-D”, it’s “P-51D”.
+7No, published performance numbers are generally in TAS, as they reflect what the aircraft is capable of achieving across the ground in a no wind situation. IAS varies too much with altitude and is a much less meaningful for evaluating aircraft performance. However, IAS is what pilots use to fly their aircraft as aircraft flight characteristics generally conform to IAS…the IAS at which an aircraft stalls is generally consistent, the stall speed being fairly close at S.L. as compared to higher altitudes…as that’s the speed the wing and instrumentation “sees” and reacts to.
+1It’s called the North American FJ-1 Fury. Bill Gunston in his book (remember actual books?), “Fighters of the Fifties” states far more conclusively that the P-51 was the starting point, though it was redesigned to a certain extent to accommodate a jet engine and new fuselage. Wing and tail were highly similar to the Mustang’s. But the real reason why the FJ-1 or most turbojet conversions of WWII aircraft (one could argue in favor of the F-84, but the P-47 design was totally thrown out during the P-84’s development) were so quickly phased out was that straight wings were rapidly superseded by the superior swept wing designs.
+2Nice replica.
Really a brilliant build. I could go on about the flight model, which is pretty good, but the imaginative way in which you use fuselage slicing to craft the insignia, camouflage, use of text boxes for the flap and engine panel details, etc., is the real highlight. Very neat and accurate looking.
+2@Meuzar tag me on an unlisted post and I’ll take a look if you would like me to.
Certainly an ambitious effort with a ridiculously high part count. Fairly laggy on my iPhone 11, but it’s flyable. Flying characteristics are fairly good, not terribly unrealistic, from what I could do on my iPhone. It’s in the ballpark on weights, though the wing area is about twice that of the RL plane, even considering SP counts the horizontal stab area and RL stats do not. So, the 30 lb/sq ft wing loading imparts a shorter takeoff distance and more sprightly handling than a max gross Superfort probably would have. However, its maneuverability is stately, as it should be, as best I could assess on my lagging iPhone. Some beautiful reproduction work…though I’m disappointed you left the stars and bars off the wings, I absolutely love the nose art. A little overboard on “drop test”, do that test from a quarter that height IRL and you’d break that airplane in half and drive the struts through the cockpit and engine nacelles. Detail work is impressive, build is fun to play with and effort is evident. Here’s something I found that you may find interesting: B-29 gunnery training film.
+3@Meuzar how can I help you?
This is absolutely gorgeous!
Beautiful build, very realistic flight model, roll rate is spot on the RL plane, level flight acceleration is like the RL plane, not great, but acceptable. But it sure gains speed fast in the dive, just like the RL fighter, which was an advantage of the Warhawk in combat against its adversaries. Nice work, on my favorites list!
+1Also, amazing flight dynamics. Just with a real jet, I can get on the correct 3 degree glide path, set a power to hold an airspeed (about 10% and 160-165 KIAS on final), adjust the trim to maintain the aim point and flare as I come over the threshold. You are one of a very, very few builders who makes a build that behaves properly during approach and landing. You also use the correct symmetric airfoil, the smallish fuel load reflects the RL Lightning’s limitations and it behaves as closely to its RL counterpart as is probably possible in SP. Now in my “favorites” list…bravo!
+1The Mighty Lightning! This thing exudes British Greatness!
+1@LieutenantSOT I’d be honored to test it for you. Also “Strategic Air Command”, starring the great Jimmy Stewart, is one of my favorite films!
+1Some thoughts on your build:
+1- I would recommend you out all lights on a single AG, with the landing lights having a dual input with landing gear extension; when the AG is activated and the L.G. is extended, landing lights come on and they extinguish with gear retraction. Fairly simple FT input and they would operate as IRL, for the most part. In peacetime, at night, aircraft are/were flown with all lights on for collision avoidance and in combat/exercises, flown “blacked out”. Doing it this way allows your build to be almost completely accurate while keeping lights on a single AG.
- The performance difference between prop only and using the four jets was 230 mph up to a dash speed of 400 mph…170 mph difference, so the jets greatly added to the performance; which recommend you not downplay the difference between prop only performance and prop plus jet performance.
- Just put all 4 jets on a single AG…there’s no scenario IRL where these guys would use only two of the four jets. They were used during takeoff, the bomb run/combat dash and to escape the thermonuclear blast. In any time f those cases, you don’t want to half-a** it.
- Described as “sitting on the porch and flying your house”, the B-36 wasn’t spry…however it WAS functional as an aircraft. If I try and fly this build and am unable to turn and align with the runway for landing, it’s not realistic. So, don’t make it too sluggish.
- I doubt that hydraulics weren’t considered powerful enough for the B-36’s flight controls. I’d like to see a citation and would argue that viewpoint with whomever said it…most aircraft hydraulic systems operate around 3000 PSI, far, far, far more powerful than what a pilot can operate manually. In 737 sim training, I’ve practiced manual reversion landings and I can tell you, it’s a bear to control the jet without the hydraulic system. The positive trade off, though, is the decreased complexity, weight and dependence on the hydraulic system, which is handy in combat as enemy action can easily take out the hydraulics. Yes, the B-36 did use balance bays and control tabs, as does the KC-135 even today, so what was achieved was the best one could expect from a manual system, but the trade off is heavy control forces. So much so that today, they just don’t make large aircraft which primarily depend on manual control surfaces.
- Anyway, looks like an ambitious effort, good luck!
Flies fairly well. Max roll rate is a tad bit slower than IRL, but not far off. Takeoff distance and acceleration are in the ballpark, as is pitch rate. It doesn’t like to slow down and I’d have put more effect on the speed brakes, but it’s controllable. The build’s empty weight is close to the RL spec, but, overall, this thing is pretty lightly loaded, as if for a training sortie “around the flagpole”, instead of maxed out for a combat drop. TRs can deploy airborne, as with the RL jet. I was able to perform a tactical arrival and stop it in 4,000’, first try. With practice, I’m sure I could do it in 3,000’, nice.
+11@BangRou the autoroll is most noticeable at lower speeds, up to around 300 knots or so, though it’s still present above that speed. If you simply level the wings and let the stick go (zero aileron input), it rolls slowly to the right. You can really see it if you level the wings at slower speeds, then pull straight back…it definitely rolls right when it should pull straight. I don’t know if it’s due to the pod being right of centerline and making your build slightly right side heavy, having uneven drag or having a wonky mirrored connection, it could be any of those things. It’s slight, though and I’m sure it’s not a bother to most, though I definitely tend to notice those things.
+1I also have to say the JDAMs and pod tracking are excellent. Not sure if that’s totally your creation or if someone has figured this out before, but that one feature makes this worth the price of admission alone.
+3Way better than I expected. The acceleration on takeoff is a bit high and the energy loss is a bit low, but nothing is ridiculously unrealistic. Roll rate, turn rate and S.L. speeds are in the ballpark, the build itself looks pretty good (would have done the root trailing edges differently, but it looks like a Viper). My biggest comments are that I would also suggest you to use the symmetric airfoil instead of the Cessna wing, which would help your performance numbers greatly. Also, it has a little auto-roll, yuck!; but for all that, this is a very good build, especially given your 560 points.
+7Your first build, congratulations. Yes, SP is different than SR. I noticed on your build that you tell the user to “spawn on final approach”; you don’t say why, but probably because your build is very difficult to take off normally. This is because the rear landing gear is at the extreme end of the fuselage, making it impossible to rotate the jet when it reaches flying airspeed. To fix this, you can move the rear landing gear forward, where it sits just aft of the CoM, so that your build has a better pivot point around which to rotate and leave the runway. This solution would still leave it with the bicycle style landing gear arrangement, but it’s not impossible to simply keep the wings level while it runs down the runway. Hope this helps and welcome to SP!
+1Flies beautifully. So many builders think that large/heavy jets turn or pitch so slowly that they’re nearly impossible to fly. However, if you think about it, if a RL jet was engineered to be unmaneuverable, or at least not maneuverable enough to be controllable, they’d be impossible to fly. Your build, though it never was built IRL, flies quite realistically…it flies like a heavy jet, you wouldn’t want to do a Split-S or roll this thing, but the pilot can certainly easily correct his flight path and land the jet in the center of the runway. Another highlight is the fact that your landing gear doesn’t glitch out, in spite of the fact this build is way more than a million pounds gross. I’m going to have to download to my PC and investigate how you’ve managed this.
+1Build more and build your own stuff (though that Soviet Star does look great!) instead of modifying others’ work, don’t try to host any challenges, you don’t have credibility yet. But mostly, build more! Also, something I noticed is that when I started building replicas, my skills got much better, faster. Try a few replicas (OF AIRCRAFT) and I’m sure you’ll get a lot better as well.
An excellent, well executed build. The build itself captures the Kikka’s shape accurately, to include the outlines of the flying surfaces, which took some work judging by the number of parts used in that area. The flight model is good, about as good as can be expected while relying on the basic game physics and drag reduction. The wing area, fuel quantity, weights, wing loading and thrust are all accurate, so that results in a build that flies close to the RL jet. Acceleration (like all early jets, slow), takeoff roll, roll rate, pitch and turn rates and general performance at low altitude is close to RL, IMHO. The high altitude speed is too fast, I think because you used indicated airspeeds and not TAS to reflect the RL’s published “speeds”. However, the published RL performance figures are almost always for TAS, not IAS, and the difference in TAS and IAS is large at high altitude. At low altitude/S.L., where the difference in TAS and IAS is small, your build has a close to RL max level TAS, which is good. The fast airspeed at high altitude is also a result of the SP atmosphere model, which results in speeds being too slow at S.L. and too fast at high altitude. The only way I know of around this is to use a FT formula on the engines that decreases thrust as you climb, increases thrust with speed (ram air effect) or uses a speed brake that deploys when the jet’s max speed is reached. Everyone has their preferences, though I would suggest also use your speed brakes to simulate landing gear drag, as extended L.G. creates a lot of drag when extended. You use the concealed air brakes here with “Airbrake”, though the RL jet didn’t have any speed brakes and none are modeled on your build, which is really odd! What results is: Pull back on the throttle and the jet slows drastically…perhaps the biggest miss for your build. Last difference in what you did and what I would suggest is: More trim authority! Trim effectiveness (clean) is lost below 210 KIAS and though extending the flaps restores trim authority, that’s not how trim effectiveness works IRL. Trim is almost always effective to well below stall airspeed, whether clean or “dirty”. But, very nice build, my write up is long, but I wanted to give a complete evaluation because, regardless of any suggestions I make, this is an excellent build that feels realistic, flies nicely and is fun to fly. Keep up the good work!
+7The setup and activation is a little strange, it doesn’t appear to be a selectable weapon and no aiming reticle appears, which I think is throwing off players (see comments), but it does work. Simply select air to ground or air to air, press on the “0x G-30R”, which will highlight and press fire. You need to guess where the first rounds will go without the aiming reticle, which appears only while firing. Very effective, though.
It’s really too bad we can’t use the in-game unguided rockets as air-to-air weapons. I’ve tried, but there’s no way to do so. Though they will fire, fly and hit airborne objects (a not-quite-impossible task), there’s no way to select them for use using the AIR-TO-AIR button, there’s no air-to-air target illumination and there’s no green aiming reticle, making them almost impossible to use effectively, which is too bad as when they hit, they make an impressively enormous explosion. IRL, the F-89, F-86D and F-102 had an aiming computer for these weapons and simply allowing the in game rockets to use the air to air key would be similar to how they were used IRL. Instead, we’re stuck with recreating the Battle of Palmdale.
+2You failed to mention the most important parts of her history: Along with the Akagi, Hiryu, Soryu, Shokaku and Zuikaku, one of the IJN carriers in the attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December, 1941. Sunk at the Battle of Midway in June, 1942.
+1Well, was going to heap a lot of praise onto this build, until I realized it has zero cockpit view. That’s too bad, because it’s nearly impossible to land it well without the view from the cockpit.