@RedRoosterII you just measure the section you want to replicate on the “blueprint”..on the real, physical paper printout, then you just keep the compass spread at that distance, compare it against the scale on the paper. For example, you measure the picture and find out it’s a 2 meter tall part. In SP, you then replicate that piece with a 1 unit high part. The compass works just like a digital caliper, but much less complex (no batteries required)!
@RedRoosterII this is a compass. If you download and print out a “blueprint”, such as this one, you can use the compass to measure the part, compare it against the scale, or vice versa. Then you compare the scale in meters and multiply by two to get Simple Plane units.
Completely ridiculous, essentially a Combat Staggerwing, but really fun. I like those WWII style builds that can strafe and kill ground targets...very nice!
One really nice thing is that you actually have the correct sweep on the wing...most airliner builds have a 20 degree sweep, not the correct 35-40 degree sweep.
Nice replica, shape and details are right on, iOS, no less. It has issues, can’t takeoff, even with the gyro on, which in any event causes so much lag it’s totally unuseable. If the gyro is off, it likes to flip over on its back. The RL prototype Val was unstable and tended to snap-roll under high G, but that was solved by the time it was operational and by all accounts, actually handled quite nicely. I wish people would realize the flight model is just as important as the looks. I do really like the technique used for the wheel pants, though.
You realize you have skills. With a bit of input on your flight models, you’d have some of the best creations ever on the site. Do you have anyone fly your creations prior to posting?
So...have to ask: how many parts are part of the base model and how many are the camo? Also, what technique did you use for your build? Build the base, then overlay, or what? Looks great either way...too bad it crashes my iPhone 8, which can handle almost 2,000 parts mos of the time.
This is a great build, you’ve adjusted your build style to account for performance, maneuverability and speed. Though not exactly perfect in emulating the D.III in performance, this is close. Plus, it looks great, with great attention to detail. I like it a lot.
@RedRoosterII Well, even with iOS, you can shape aircraft fairly well. One big challenge with iOS is the inability to resize individual components, such as engines. However, if you go to a site such as theblueprints.com, you can download 3-views (“blueprints”) which have a scale on them. Two SimplePlane units = 1 meter. Get yourself a compass, measure individual parts on the “blueprints” and shape the individual parts in SP.
I would give a lot if we could have a way of making true semicircles, including semicircular intakes. Additionally, concave shapes. Not sure how possible either of these might be, but I still avoid certain subjects due to these constraints.
Well my iPhone 8 can run around 1,200 parts without too much trouble. My 5 could only handle around 400 parts. Really depends on the individual device.
It was a bomber...but the AF is in the habit of calling any single pilot fighter-sized jet a fighter. Even, officially, the A-10 is a “fighter” for required crew qualifications and organizational purposes. Every single A-10 unit is a fighter squadron, fighter group or fighter wing...not an attack unit in there at all.
Komrade! Incredible...all the more incredible for being iOS!!! There should be an iOS category for this challenge, because, you, my friend, have nailed this build!
It flies better if you don’t use full elevator, which is ironic. However, in SP Just as in RL, at some point, control surfaces stall, just like any other wing.
Well, this is the second build tonight which had four landing gear! Why did you put two nosegear on this build—just curious, did it have something to do with the launch rails?
Oh yeah, mods are not useable with iOS users, so you’re limiting your users a bit when you use mods that way. There is a workaround in those situations: When an iOS user downloads a build with mods, a dialogue box opens which tells the user that they can’t download the build, but then the user can hit the back button, then the forward button and the build will load without the mods.
A fairly original fictional build, I really like the proportions and the swept wing. Next time you might want to play with the CoG a bit to make sure it’s in front of the CoM. Also, you don’t need the unlimited fuel. But nice work, now you have points!
Great build! You’ve obviously done your research. I managed to fly it pretty well...and nose over on landing, but only because I probably did it wrong.
@Hyattorama I can’t keep the y and z axes straight...but I think the fixed airplane reference is fixed in all axes, actually, but I would have to play around with it to make certain.
@Hyattorama it’s really just the same mechanism as yours with a fixed aircraft icon. Nothing complicated, like yours, only with a few extra parts. I had to put a mirrored aircraft reference on the far side of the horizon for balance, otherwise the ball would precess and eventually tumble due to being unbalanced.
@Hyattorama well this one is very similar to yours, but has a fixed airplane icon which displays climb and dive in front of the moving horizon. Note that during climbs the airplane icon is in front of the sky portion and during dives it is in front of the ground portion...just as an attitude indicator works in R.L. There are several geared attitude indicators, but I need to dig through my old messages to find the links. The one I built does what I was talking about, and is probably the simplest way of making it work that way.
Well, it does work in roll, but climb/dive indications work in reverse...which is what’s possible in SP without complicating the instrument. What makes other attitude indicator builds more complicated is that they indicate climb during nose up/climb attitudes and dive during nose down/dive attitudes. But I appreciate any sort of attitude indicators, as it denotes a higher level of SP understanding.
@otayahiromo8211 the Zero was built with the design philosophy that light weight and the resultant maneuverability was the most important attribute for a fighter. The drawbacks were that those aircraft such as the Zero were the fact they were lightly armored...when hit, they did not absorb damage as well as stronger aircraft. Additionally, while the Zero was fast enough at the beginning of the war, matching the P-40 and Wildcat, it was rapidly overtaken by faster designs such as the Hellcat and Corsair, which exploited the Zero’s lack of speed with better tactics using high speed hit and run attacks, repositioning by zooming up higher and faster than the Zero could and diving down for multiple passes. The Zero would not survive long in these type of engagements, unless flown by a superior pilot...but the Japanese had lost a lot of experienced pilots by that time, so inexperienced pilots tended to be mauled by more experienced U.S. flyers using superior tactics late in the war. So, though the Zero was a more maneuverable fighter throughout the war (U.S. pilots throughout the war were advised to NEVER turn with a Zero), it’s design philosophy was outmatched by less maneuverable, but far faster fighters, such as the F4U, which destroyed the Zero in ever increasing numbers. If a Corsair pilot turned with a Zero, it frequently didn’t end well for the F4U, but Corsair pilots were trained NOT to get into this situation and dive away if they were caught there. There is much more to aerial combat than two fighters turning up in an attempt to end up on the other’s tail...tactics, teamwork and training tend to win the day. Simply compare the kill ratios of the Corsair (or even Hellcat) vs. the Zero for evidence of this fact. Also, consider the later Japanese designs (Hayate, Shiden and others) which put a far greater emphasis on speed...but far too late to make a difference to Japan’s eventual defeat.
@Winstonlharambe sooo...the trim doesn’t trim the aircraft? Check your sources, the F13 had trim, nearly every aircraft built has had trim.
No trim?
@RedRoosterII you just measure the section you want to replicate on the “blueprint”..on the real, physical paper printout, then you just keep the compass spread at that distance, compare it against the scale on the paper. For example, you measure the picture and find out it’s a 2 meter tall part. In SP, you then replicate that piece with a 1 unit high part. The compass works just like a digital caliper, but much less complex (no batteries required)!
+1@RedRoosterII this is a compass. If you download and print out a “blueprint”, such as this one, you can use the compass to measure the part, compare it against the scale, or vice versa. Then you compare the scale in meters and multiply by two to get Simple Plane units.
I didn’t realize the original airplane was so slow, but it is fun to fly and easy to land.
@RedRoosterII 👍
+1Completely ridiculous, essentially a Combat Staggerwing, but really fun. I like those WWII style builds that can strafe and kill ground targets...very nice!
You’ve got my upvote!
One really nice thing is that you actually have the correct sweep on the wing...most airliner builds have a 20 degree sweep, not the correct 35-40 degree sweep.
Ok, amazing. But I almost missed it altogether because the screenshot doesn’t pop out unless you actually pause to take a look!
Lands quite easily as well, that’s a surprise. On my list of favorites!
Nice build, nice camo, exceptional work on the gear, flies very well.
Nice, I like the markings on the gear doors, 509th Bomb Wing, Whiteman AFB, MO. Thanks!
+1Nice replica, shape and details are right on, iOS, no less. It has issues, can’t takeoff, even with the gyro on, which in any event causes so much lag it’s totally unuseable. If the gyro is off, it likes to flip over on its back. The RL prototype Val was unstable and tended to snap-roll under high G, but that was solved by the time it was operational and by all accounts, actually handled quite nicely. I wish people would realize the flight model is just as important as the looks. I do really like the technique used for the wheel pants, though.
+1Aces High!
+1You realize you have skills. With a bit of input on your flight models, you’d have some of the best creations ever on the site. Do you have anyone fly your creations prior to posting?
+3Well, the rudder is reversed, but I’ve never seen any other Hs.123, ever, on the site.
Looks great, but, geez, I hope you’re going to do a little weight reduction, it’s half a million pounds full up!
So...have to ask: how many parts are part of the base model and how many are the camo? Also, what technique did you use for your build? Build the base, then overlay, or what? Looks great either way...too bad it crashes my iPhone 8, which can handle almost 2,000 parts mos of the time.
Very nice...many Zeroes on the site, but hardly a Hayabusa to be found—very nice build!
+1This is a great build, you’ve adjusted your build style to account for performance, maneuverability and speed. Though not exactly perfect in emulating the D.III in performance, this is close. Plus, it looks great, with great attention to detail. I like it a lot.
@RedRoosterII Well, even with iOS, you can shape aircraft fairly well. One big challenge with iOS is the inability to resize individual components, such as engines. However, if you go to a site such as theblueprints.com, you can download 3-views (“blueprints”) which have a scale on them. Two SimplePlane units = 1 meter. Get yourself a compass, measure individual parts on the “blueprints” and shape the individual parts in SP.
You’re correct...roll rate is acceptable, pitch rate, not so much! Nice build, though!
+1@RedRoosterII are you on PC or iOS?
I would give a lot if we could have a way of making true semicircles, including semicircular intakes. Additionally, concave shapes. Not sure how possible either of these might be, but I still avoid certain subjects due to these constraints.
Well my iPhone 8 can run around 1,200 parts without too much trouble. My 5 could only handle around 400 parts. Really depends on the individual device.
It was a bomber...but the AF is in the habit of calling any single pilot fighter-sized jet a fighter. Even, officially, the A-10 is a “fighter” for required crew qualifications and organizational purposes. Every single A-10 unit is a fighter squadron, fighter group or fighter wing...not an attack unit in there at all.
+3Yeah, yours is definitely the best so far—there are a couple others that are close, but yours is superior!
+1Komrade! Incredible...all the more incredible for being iOS!!! There should be an iOS category for this challenge, because, you, my friend, have nailed this build!
+1Wunderbar!
It flies better if you don’t use full elevator, which is ironic. However, in SP Just as in RL, at some point, control surfaces stall, just like any other wing.
+1Well, this is the second build tonight which had four landing gear! Why did you put two nosegear on this build—just curious, did it have something to do with the launch rails?
Oh yeah, mods are not useable with iOS users, so you’re limiting your users a bit when you use mods that way. There is a workaround in those situations: When an iOS user downloads a build with mods, a dialogue box opens which tells the user that they can’t download the build, but then the user can hit the back button, then the forward button and the build will load without the mods.
A fairly original fictional build, I really like the proportions and the swept wing. Next time you might want to play with the CoG a bit to make sure it’s in front of the CoM. Also, you don’t need the unlimited fuel. But nice work, now you have points!
She’s a big bird!
+1Neatly built, nice details, interesting look. Still with the unlimited fuel...is this thing nuclear or electrically powered?
Great build! You’ve obviously done your research. I managed to fly it pretty well...and nose over on landing, but only because I probably did it wrong.
+1Super cool.
Based on the Tu-16 or it’s descendent, the H-6.
@Hyattorama absolutely plausible, nice work 😃👍
+1Wow, nice build! Now I know why you were building instruments!
+1I really like the ground rules for your challenge, should be a good one.
+1Looks great, a bit slow in turn, but a nice build.
@Hyattorama I can’t keep the y and z axes straight...but I think the fixed airplane reference is fixed in all axes, actually, but I would have to play around with it to make certain.
+1@Hyattorama it’s really just the same mechanism as yours with a fixed aircraft icon. Nothing complicated, like yours, only with a few extra parts. I had to put a mirrored aircraft reference on the far side of the horizon for balance, otherwise the ball would precess and eventually tumble due to being unbalanced.
+1@Hyattorama well this one is very similar to yours, but has a fixed airplane icon which displays climb and dive in front of the moving horizon. Note that during climbs the airplane icon is in front of the sky portion and during dives it is in front of the ground portion...just as an attitude indicator works in R.L. There are several geared attitude indicators, but I need to dig through my old messages to find the links. The one I built does what I was talking about, and is probably the simplest way of making it work that way.
+1Well, it does work in roll, but climb/dive indications work in reverse...which is what’s possible in SP without complicating the instrument. What makes other attitude indicator builds more complicated is that they indicate climb during nose up/climb attitudes and dive during nose down/dive attitudes. But I appreciate any sort of attitude indicators, as it denotes a higher level of SP understanding.
+1@otayahiromo8211 the Zero was built with the design philosophy that light weight and the resultant maneuverability was the most important attribute for a fighter. The drawbacks were that those aircraft such as the Zero were the fact they were lightly armored...when hit, they did not absorb damage as well as stronger aircraft. Additionally, while the Zero was fast enough at the beginning of the war, matching the P-40 and Wildcat, it was rapidly overtaken by faster designs such as the Hellcat and Corsair, which exploited the Zero’s lack of speed with better tactics using high speed hit and run attacks, repositioning by zooming up higher and faster than the Zero could and diving down for multiple passes. The Zero would not survive long in these type of engagements, unless flown by a superior pilot...but the Japanese had lost a lot of experienced pilots by that time, so inexperienced pilots tended to be mauled by more experienced U.S. flyers using superior tactics late in the war. So, though the Zero was a more maneuverable fighter throughout the war (U.S. pilots throughout the war were advised to NEVER turn with a Zero), it’s design philosophy was outmatched by less maneuverable, but far faster fighters, such as the F4U, which destroyed the Zero in ever increasing numbers. If a Corsair pilot turned with a Zero, it frequently didn’t end well for the F4U, but Corsair pilots were trained NOT to get into this situation and dive away if they were caught there. There is much more to aerial combat than two fighters turning up in an attempt to end up on the other’s tail...tactics, teamwork and training tend to win the day. Simply compare the kill ratios of the Corsair (or even Hellcat) vs. the Zero for evidence of this fact. Also, consider the later Japanese designs (Hayate, Shiden and others) which put a far greater emphasis on speed...but far too late to make a difference to Japan’s eventual defeat.
+2Gorgeous
Very nice, again. Forgiving to fly and land, like the real airplane.