@otayahiromo8211 @GhostHTX is not criticizing your description, he really likes your build, as do I! Nice build, flies delightfully well and I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Defiant here before, well done!
Well, flies nice, accelerates realistically, nice build. Why the gyro? If it’s to fly hands off, why not call it an autopilot? Also, will...not...run...out...of...fuel...!
Well, I generally like it, I especially like the creativity and precision when it comes to the ailerons, the work on the rudder and the landing gear. I do have several inputs, if you'll humor me: Doesn't need near unlimited fuel, or the negative empty weight, really. Also, the trim and flaps being interconnected. You might want to stack two rotators on top of each other, one set to pitch, the other to trim. Other than those two gripes, this is great fun to fly. I also have to admit the Scooter is one of my favorite airplanes.
@Chancey21 really...the placement is perfect. Did you use math and figure out the numbers beforehand? I’m asking because I need to do something similar for a build I’m working on and I’d like it to look finished, which I’ve not been able to do.
Nice proportions, some cool features, but not really a replica, more of a “what if” build. As in, “what if the Soviets has built and exported a MiG-17 which accelerated like it was a projectile on a rail gun, turned its pilot to goo when it executed a break turn at 20 Gs, had heaters with helmet mounted cueing which could engage and fly three times as far as the AIM-9 and air to ground missiles which obliterated everything within 9 square miles?” Fun to fly and obliterate everything in one’s path, though!
@randomusername wrt your comments on trim, all aircraft that vary their airspeed vary trim. Any speed change requires a corresponding trim change to maintain level flight. My jet cruises around at .7-.8 Mach and the autopilot is constantly adjusting trim to maintain level flight. In fact, we have a second trim system, called, literally, “Mach Trim” which adjusts trim during high speed, high altitude flight. So, requiring trim changes above 200 mph is certainly not a cause to call an aircraft “poorly designed”.
Unfortunately there are no Mach effects in SP. A straight winged aircraft and a swept wing aircraft fly exactly the same speed. I tried it awhile ago and was severely disappointed. I do agree with your point, though, realistic builds, even if they’re fictional aircraft, will have swept or relatively short and thin wings if they fly at supersonic speeds in SP (around 770 mph at S.L.).
Beautiful representation of a unique plane. You’re getting better with each build. This one still accelerates fairly swiftly, but overall, it handles fairly well and is very enjoyable to fly.
Huh, this works, definitely could see the red lights when I was low on the glide path at night, if on a mobile, it’s a little hard to see unless you’re fairly close, but that’s no fault of your own. Definitely can sort of make night approaches to the carrier now.
@WarHawk95 certainly the Corsair would be in the running as the best shipborne fighter of all time, which, puts it in the running as the best fighter of all time, good thinking!
@WarHawk95 yes, I agree, putting each Cleaver on it’s own AG would be very true to life, as that’s how it worked on the real X-1, waiting to see the final result!
The real thing had a fairly high wing loading, even higher than this build, but glided better (it landed at around 130 mph). I’m not sure how much of the aircraft weight was fuel, though I’m fairly certain it was significant. Probably, the X-1 empty had a significantly lower wing loading and, thus, a more manageable landing speed than here. I’m gliding this thing 20-30 degrees nose low and it doesn’t really glide at all. But, I’ve noticed that in all SP gliders. If you were going to rebuild this thing with Cleaver missiles, I might suggest aiming for the empty weight wing loading, either through reducing the fuel load (unfortunately, the Cleavers will not consume fuel) or by scaling the wing. Anyway, you nailed everything else here, nice build!
Interesting...not too many votes for the Mustang...or the Spitfire...seems to be overwhelmingly be the Eagle. A few others thrown into the mix (Flanker, Buffalo, P-47, Me-109, Eindecker) for good measure. Did the Eagle end Air to air combat as we’ve known it? Have the Eagle’s opponents thrown in the towel and decided they can’t win? I maintain no, at least not yet, the Chinese and Russians clearly have a capability to meet the Eagle on favorable terms. Thoughts?
@TheDepressedPig nice take on the subject...I agree the Thunderbolt is worthy of consideration, especially since USAAF fighter pilots turned its disadvantages (weight, turning capability) as a fighter into advantages (flew it higher, above 30,000’, then dove against other fighters in high speed one pass diving attacks...nothing could match the Thunderbolt in a dive) through smart tactics. If the Thunderbolt is the greatest fighter, then should we consider the Strike Eagle the ultimate incarnation of the F-15?
@F104Deathtrap wow. That’s a stretch...but I like your reasoning. So, ok, I’m game and I accept your logic. It’s interesting, though, to consider both in the case of the Buffalo and the Eagle, how much the role of training and proficiency has in the kill record of a particular fighter. There are many cases where better trained, more proficient tacticians flying in inferior aircraft actually best superior aircraft flown by inferior pilots (Wildcat vs. Zero may be case in point here)...
Well, this is pretty good. Too bad it hasn't been noticed yet, hopefully, Spotlighting it will get some notice for you. Things I might suggest for next time: It's bigger than 1:1 scale, you might make it to scale next time. It has way more fuel than the real thing, which gives it a relatively high wing loading, making it tougher to fly than it might be. I, in fact, removed a bunch of fuel and it flies great at a lower wing loading. The real thing has a full up weight of less than 25,000 lbs, usually flown at less than 20,000 lbs at takeoff and is a highly maneuverable and a joy to fly...in other words, it's not an F-4 fully grossed out. I realize SP fuel consumption is higher than in RL, which is why many people will put infinite fuel on a build, or fill it completely with fuel, but who the heck flies around for 2 hours in SP? Also, in RL the F-5 (or really most other aircraft) doesn't move the flaps along with the stab. I would suggest keeping the flaps on VTOL so that they can be selected for takeoff and landing. But, the proportions are right, you've captured the overall look of the F-5 and the performance is in the right neighborhood; I have 500 hours in the T-38, so I ought to know. Nice work.
This isn't perfect, but it's very good, especially for someone with 1,800 points. I would have kept the flaps on VTOL controls and the trim on the slider, but it flies pretty well and the shape is spot on. If I were you, I would also consider a re-release of this build at some point later one, but with custom gear, more markings and "disableMesh=true" on the rotators. Nice work.
Well, the feathering mechanism really works...?!? Just as it does in RL...which was completely unexpected to me as SP isn’t really RL with real air loads working on actual control surfaces, just computer based approximations as to how those surfaces might react in the air. So, when the feathered plane fell straight down at around 250 mph, I was surprised, to say the least!
@AceMcCloud thanks. This is an older build, so there are some autoroll issues, it’s undersized and also really difficult to take off and land. I’ve considered rebuilding a new Scooter because it’s one of my favorite jets of all time.
@otayahiromo8211 @GhostHTX is not criticizing your description, he really likes your build, as do I! Nice build, flies delightfully well and I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Defiant here before, well done!
Well, flies nice, accelerates realistically, nice build. Why the gyro? If it’s to fly hands off, why not call it an autopilot? Also, will...not...run...out...of...fuel...!
+1Well, I generally like it, I especially like the creativity and precision when it comes to the ailerons, the work on the rudder and the landing gear. I do have several inputs, if you'll humor me: Doesn't need near unlimited fuel, or the negative empty weight, really. Also, the trim and flaps being interconnected. You might want to stack two rotators on top of each other, one set to pitch, the other to trim. Other than those two gripes, this is great fun to fly. I also have to admit the Scooter is one of my favorite airplanes.
Nice build, looks good, but you really need to plan your roll ins and roll outs!
+1@Chancey21 wow, that’s some eye for precision you have there! Nice!
@Chancey21 really...the placement is perfect. Did you use math and figure out the numbers beforehand? I’m asking because I need to do something similar for a build I’m working on and I’d like it to look finished, which I’ve not been able to do.
Geez, such hostility...anyhow, how did you place those sections together so precisely? Did you use scripts?
Nice proportions, some cool features, but not really a replica, more of a “what if” build. As in, “what if the Soviets has built and exported a MiG-17 which accelerated like it was a projectile on a rail gun, turned its pilot to goo when it executed a break turn at 20 Gs, had heaters with helmet mounted cueing which could engage and fly three times as far as the AIM-9 and air to ground missiles which obliterated everything within 9 square miles?” Fun to fly and obliterate everything in one’s path, though!
+1Kewl.
+1@randomusername wrt your comments on trim, all aircraft that vary their airspeed vary trim. Any speed change requires a corresponding trim change to maintain level flight. My jet cruises around at .7-.8 Mach and the autopilot is constantly adjusting trim to maintain level flight. In fact, we have a second trim system, called, literally, “Mach Trim” which adjusts trim during high speed, high altitude flight. So, requiring trim changes above 200 mph is certainly not a cause to call an aircraft “poorly designed”.
+1I made many of the same complaints as you recently! Your post is far prettier—nice pics!
+1Unfortunately there are no Mach effects in SP. A straight winged aircraft and a swept wing aircraft fly exactly the same speed. I tried it awhile ago and was severely disappointed. I do agree with your point, though, realistic builds, even if they’re fictional aircraft, will have swept or relatively short and thin wings if they fly at supersonic speeds in SP (around 770 mph at S.L.).
+2For the Motherland!
A bit tail heavy and pitch happy, but a nice effort nonetheless.
Bravo, Bravo! This is beautiful, accurate in looks and performance both...best Dr.1 on the site!
+3Beautiful representation of a unique plane. You’re getting better with each build. This one still accelerates fairly swiftly, but overall, it handles fairly well and is very enjoyable to fly.
Why hadn’t upvotes this yet??? Oh well, that’s rectified now.
+1Gorgeous Boeing. And, it actually flies well! (I actually had 3 props strike the runway on landing, but, shhh!)
Interesting build. You can XML mod. Next time, you might try to increase the prop engine’s power and get rid of the jet.
I like it!
Wish we had some sort of “instrumentation” tag for things like this, instead of just the more general “parts” tag.
+3Huh, this works, definitely could see the red lights when I was low on the glide path at night, if on a mobile, it’s a little hard to see unless you’re fairly close, but that’s no fault of your own. Definitely can sort of make night approaches to the carrier now.
Nice, but why did you give it 50,000 hp? It flies over 300 mph, the real thing flew just faster than 120 mph...
+4@WarHawk95 certainly the Corsair would be in the running as the best shipborne fighter of all time, which, puts it in the running as the best fighter of all time, good thinking!
+1@WarHawk95 yes, I agree, putting each Cleaver on it’s own AG would be very true to life, as that’s how it worked on the real X-1, waiting to see the final result!
+1Wow, makes my eyeballs bleed and would instantly crush it’s pilot to death!
Gotta love the portrait of Vigo the Carpathian!
+1The real thing had a fairly high wing loading, even higher than this build, but glided better (it landed at around 130 mph). I’m not sure how much of the aircraft weight was fuel, though I’m fairly certain it was significant. Probably, the X-1 empty had a significantly lower wing loading and, thus, a more manageable landing speed than here. I’m gliding this thing 20-30 degrees nose low and it doesn’t really glide at all. But, I’ve noticed that in all SP gliders. If you were going to rebuild this thing with Cleaver missiles, I might suggest aiming for the empty weight wing loading, either through reducing the fuel load (unfortunately, the Cleavers will not consume fuel) or by scaling the wing. Anyway, you nailed everything else here, nice build!
+1@Djorg708 interesting choice and way of looking at the question; you are correct, though, the F-18 does many things well.
Fun!
@QingyuZhou yes, it’s actually very easy to fly, I’m wondering how you made it that way...and you’re right, it’s extremely simple to hover.
+1This is amazing, really great work!
This is eggsactly what this site need right now!
+1@BurkeEnterprise that’s probably my next question. But not yet.
Interesting...not too many votes for the Mustang...or the Spitfire...seems to be overwhelmingly be the Eagle. A few others thrown into the mix (Flanker, Buffalo, P-47, Me-109, Eindecker) for good measure. Did the Eagle end Air to air combat as we’ve known it? Have the Eagle’s opponents thrown in the towel and decided they can’t win? I maintain no, at least not yet, the Chinese and Russians clearly have a capability to meet the Eagle on favorable terms. Thoughts?
@TheDepressedPig nice take on the subject...I agree the Thunderbolt is worthy of consideration, especially since USAAF fighter pilots turned its disadvantages (weight, turning capability) as a fighter into advantages (flew it higher, above 30,000’, then dove against other fighters in high speed one pass diving attacks...nothing could match the Thunderbolt in a dive) through smart tactics. If the Thunderbolt is the greatest fighter, then should we consider the Strike Eagle the ultimate incarnation of the F-15?
@AdlerSteiner Ha! Yeah, I’ll go with the ‘109
@Nerfenthusiast not sure what you mean..? Do you mean the F-22’s only advantage is that it has a better radar than the Eagle?
@Mostly of course it was...of course it was...
+1Not bad...welcome to the site!
@Tully2001 wait...you’re a Mod now...? When did that happen and how did I miss that???
@F104Deathtrap wow. That’s a stretch...but I like your reasoning. So, ok, I’m game and I accept your logic. It’s interesting, though, to consider both in the case of the Buffalo and the Eagle, how much the role of training and proficiency has in the kill record of a particular fighter. There are many cases where better trained, more proficient tacticians flying in inferior aircraft actually best superior aircraft flown by inferior pilots (Wildcat vs. Zero may be case in point here)...
+1@RamboJutter nice, I like the not so obvious answers!
+1Yes, I did mean in RL...I suppose I could post another question asking “what’s the greatest SP creation of all time?” But for now, IRL.
One detail I really like is the slab sided nature of the fuselage below the canopy...most people completely miss this, but it's perfect here!
+2Well, this is pretty good. Too bad it hasn't been noticed yet, hopefully, Spotlighting it will get some notice for you. Things I might suggest for next time: It's bigger than 1:1 scale, you might make it to scale next time. It has way more fuel than the real thing, which gives it a relatively high wing loading, making it tougher to fly than it might be. I, in fact, removed a bunch of fuel and it flies great at a lower wing loading. The real thing has a full up weight of less than 25,000 lbs, usually flown at less than 20,000 lbs at takeoff and is a highly maneuverable and a joy to fly...in other words, it's not an F-4 fully grossed out. I realize SP fuel consumption is higher than in RL, which is why many people will put infinite fuel on a build, or fill it completely with fuel, but who the heck flies around for 2 hours in SP? Also, in RL the F-5 (or really most other aircraft) doesn't move the flaps along with the stab. I would suggest keeping the flaps on VTOL so that they can be selected for takeoff and landing. But, the proportions are right, you've captured the overall look of the F-5 and the performance is in the right neighborhood; I have 500 hours in the T-38, so I ought to know. Nice work.
+2This isn't perfect, but it's very good, especially for someone with 1,800 points. I would have kept the flaps on VTOL controls and the trim on the slider, but it flies pretty well and the shape is spot on. If I were you, I would also consider a re-release of this build at some point later one, but with custom gear, more markings and "disableMesh=true" on the rotators. Nice work.
Well, the feathering mechanism really works...?!? Just as it does in RL...which was completely unexpected to me as SP isn’t really RL with real air loads working on actual control surfaces, just computer based approximations as to how those surfaces might react in the air. So, when the feathered plane fell straight down at around 250 mph, I was surprised, to say the least!
@AceMcCloud thanks. This is an older build, so there are some autoroll issues, it’s undersized and also really difficult to take off and land. I’ve considered rebuilding a new Scooter because it’s one of my favorite jets of all time.
Nice. Some nice details that accurately capture the look and proportions of the Viper, without jarring items that are incorrect.