Generally, the way that setup works in RL is by changing the speed differential between the rotors, which spin in opposite directions. In SP, a tail rotor isn't required to counteract the torque from the main rotor, so it's not the counter-rotating mains that are making it difficult to rotate. However, a gyro, while not required for yaw control in SP, does stabilize yaw a bit, once introduced. Have you tried no yaw gyro to see what that does for you? That's where I would suggest you start, instead of coming at it from the other way, where you have a super strong gyro for yaw.
Easy to fly controls, probably not 100% analogous to a RL chopper, but easy nonetheless. I would tone down the power, as it only takes around 3% to lift off and 2% to fly. I would adjust so that it takes at least 50% to lift off and fly. I realize the adjustment is blade pitch, not power, but I would think about it as a ratio of available pitch which is similar to a power setting. Also, why doesn't it yaw for me, or at least, it doesn't yaw that quickly. Adjust that so that it can yaw easily, as that's a hallmark of a chopper, they can pivot fairly quickly in general. Other controls don't seem out of whack wrt control authority.
Oh, @CreativeUsername they weren’t turboprops, they were 6x P&W Wasp Major radial piston engines (in addition to the four jets, J47s, you mentioned). Probably the ultimate development of the piston propeller powerplant, they produced 3,800 hp each, but like all piston engines they had thousands of moving parts and were so much less reliable than a modern jet engine. Yet another reason why jets eventually replaced prop engines.
Nice article, I’m a fan. As for the NB-36, while it was a test bed and did carry a nuclear reactor, the reactor didn’t actually power the aircraft for flight, all the engines (the six turnin’ and four burnin ‘) were still conventional. They were making steps towards having a nuc powered aircraft until someone figured out that it would be a really bad idea to do so, as you mention. For @CreativeUsername’s edification, the NB-36 started out as a B-36, to which was added the reactor and the appropriate shielding.
Cool, unique and different. Well, I guess “unique” means the same thing as “different”...but, still, I like it, from the nose art to the interesting landing gear to the cockpit, very cool.
I have to admit, I never tried out satuzuki65’s original build, but I am so impressed with the research, thought, attention to detail—and...no infinite fuel!!! Bonus! And it actually flies well! This is a “in your face” to all those high ranked builders who resort to tricks in their builds. Beautiful work, here’s a Spotlight!
@RamboJutter I think he just cut and ran. I saw the post which said, “results decided,” but I never saw who won or anything. This is the second challenge where I’ve seen this happen, I’m going to carefully reconsider future participation in challenges because if the host doesn’t have the experience, resources or patience to actually make videos and post results, then forget it.
Looks good, if you want a suggestion on where to focus your building efforts, I would concentrate on those vertical stabs, making those out of shaped fuselage block sections, with rudders moving via rotators.
@LeonardoEngineering well, the weight reduction, specifically. You don’t need it plus it detracts from the realism. Most jets this size will weigh at least 20,000 lbs—or if you prefer, 9,072 kg. The T-50, which this seems to be modeled on grosses out at 27,300 lbs (12,300 kg). This one weighs less than a P-51. So, you didn’t need to go to a 9 lbs/sq ft wing loading. I do appreciate that you limited the horizontal stab movement to keep the pitch rate realistic, but part of the challenge of a jet like this is landing it and that’s more difficult with a realistic wing loading. If you were having a difficult time with CG, you could also move the engine’s CG forward—that’s where it is on real jets as the tail pipe and AB sections are far longer than in SP. But for that aspect and a bit of XML drag reduction which would help the very brisk acceleration, it’s a gorgeous build.
So, while the Convair 880 was designed as the fastest airliner and it flew faster than contemporary airliners in level flight, it never exceeded the speed of sound. However, little known fact is that the Douglas DC-8 was actually flown supersonic in a dive during a flight test! Can’t wait to see your completed build, though.
It works, at least you have both controls separate, not combined like so many builds I see out there. Nice build, really, I rather enjoyed flying it around.
@BaconAircraft funny, hadn’t thought about it that way, you’re right Scott Manley does say that at the end of his videos. I say it because my T-37 pilot training flight commander used to say it at the end of his morning briefings around 25 years ago. I subsequently used it to close my briefings....soooo...I thought if it first!!!!
Also, I suggest this website: The Blueprints. For your next replica, download a drawing (with a scale on it) and make some measurements. This build is close, but the outer mold lines are not right on.
This is a good build, certainly better than 90-95% out there, especially that landing gear, very nice. A couple of things I might have done differently include incorporating trim, not this loopy flap with trim thing non-pilots like to do. I would have also used the standard tire, not the off-road tire, looks out of place.
This is pretty good. May I make a few advanced suggestions that might get you a few more notices? First, the presentation isn’t great. I know, people say the default screenshot display (black and grey background) is boring but it works and I still use it. Here’s why: it’s the same reason Apple still allows you to tap on a photo in your phone and view it with a black background. The eye is drawn to the color contrast and sees the object on display. Here, your build disappears into the tan background. It just does, sorry.
Only one tip for next time...in 25 years of flying, I have never met a flap lever that was pushed up to extend the flaps, they all work the other way 😉
I might actually use this template, I would just use an SP wing for the bottom surface, probably scaled, and replace the upper surface with a fuse block.
@Chancey21 is correct, it will be really difficult to make your airplane fly correctly with the wings angled like that. This is a great starting point for building curved airfoils, but you can simplify the design a bit, there are many RL wing shapes, most in fact have lower leading edges which are curved around, some are symmetrical (most fighter aircraft), others are thinner. Bottom line, do a little research, use the above as a template, but don’t worry if your wing design doesn’t exactly match the one above.
@Mostly I’ll agree with you for the most part, but, for it’s time, I would say the MiG-15 might have been the best fighter in the world, until the more advanced Sabres gave it a run for its money.
Soviet (now Russian) design philosophy: Rugged and simple to maintain, inexpensive, GCI dependent (centralized control), high performance aerodynamics
Western design philosophy: Stealth (current day), high tech, electronics and computer heavy, ultra high performance in both aerodynamics and systems capabilities, multi-role whenever possible, cost is not a factor (we talk about keeping cost down, but, in the end, we'll still pay a lot for cutting edge capability)
@tsampoy nah, that’s overly harsh. The MiG-15? Not a copy, looks kinda like a Sabre, but if you look closely, the nose intake and swept wing is most of the similarity, but the German invention of the swept wing was used at the same time by both the Soviets and West. The MiG-19? Definitely less advanced than the Super Sabre, so, not a copy, the Hun has features the Soviets would have copied if they could, like the all moving stab. So, not a copy. The MiG-21? Copy of what? There isn’t anything similar in design or concept until, arguably the F-16A’s original concept, perhaps the F-8 Crusader...kinda same concept, vastly different designs. Same thing MiG-23/27. MiG-25? Preceded the Eagle and was vastly inferior but for top speed and altitude, where it was superior. MiG-29, sort of a cross between the F-16 and F-17/18, but dissimilar to both in design. So, no, don’t think so. There might be elements of MiG designs “borrowed” from the West without permission, but, they’re much more original than you give credit for. Oh, yeah, there are zero MiG bombers, Mikoyan Guervich builds only fighters.
They’re actually pretty good airplanes, depending on your definition. They’re rugged, tend to turn well at low to medium altitudes, are usually very fast for their time. They tend to be heavily armed and are usually less expensive than their Western counterparts. They do not tend to be as advanced as their Western counterparts (exceptions to this include the MiG-15). Their design philosophy is different: Their engines are designed to last a shorter period time and changed out wholely instead of being carefully maintained over time. The idea is that it would be easier to simply swap the entire engine in combat. Weapons are hit and miss on whether they are more advanced. The AA-2 was a copy of the early Sidewinder (recovered from a Chinese jet shot by a Taiwanese F-86 equipped with AIM-9B), the AA-10C and AA-11 are very advanced, in some ways superior to the AIM-120 and AIM-9. However, the West and US particularly, have embraced the smart bomb revolution so that’s not even a competition there.
Generally, the way that setup works in RL is by changing the speed differential between the rotors, which spin in opposite directions. In SP, a tail rotor isn't required to counteract the torque from the main rotor, so it's not the counter-rotating mains that are making it difficult to rotate. However, a gyro, while not required for yaw control in SP, does stabilize yaw a bit, once introduced. Have you tried no yaw gyro to see what that does for you? That's where I would suggest you start, instead of coming at it from the other way, where you have a super strong gyro for yaw.
Easy to fly controls, probably not 100% analogous to a RL chopper, but easy nonetheless. I would tone down the power, as it only takes around 3% to lift off and 2% to fly. I would adjust so that it takes at least 50% to lift off and fly. I realize the adjustment is blade pitch, not power, but I would think about it as a ratio of available pitch which is similar to a power setting. Also, why doesn't it yaw for me, or at least, it doesn't yaw that quickly. Adjust that so that it can yaw easily, as that's a hallmark of a chopper, they can pivot fairly quickly in general. Other controls don't seem out of whack wrt control authority.
+1This is great...accurate, 1:1 scale, highly detailed exterior, flies very well 😃👍
+2Wow, nice build!
Ok, love the Sidewinders, but what the heck does “Lammergeier” mean???
Wow, nice work, flies great!
Beautiful!
@CreativeUsername that is sad...now I’m sad 😢
Oh, @CreativeUsername they weren’t turboprops, they were 6x P&W Wasp Major radial piston engines (in addition to the four jets, J47s, you mentioned). Probably the ultimate development of the piston propeller powerplant, they produced 3,800 hp each, but like all piston engines they had thousands of moving parts and were so much less reliable than a modern jet engine. Yet another reason why jets eventually replaced prop engines.
Nice article, I’m a fan. As for the NB-36, while it was a test bed and did carry a nuclear reactor, the reactor didn’t actually power the aircraft for flight, all the engines (the six turnin’ and four burnin ‘) were still conventional. They were making steps towards having a nuc powered aircraft until someone figured out that it would be a really bad idea to do so, as you mention. For @CreativeUsername’s edification, the NB-36 started out as a B-36, to which was added the reactor and the appropriate shielding.
Cool, unique and different. Well, I guess “unique” means the same thing as “different”...but, still, I like it, from the nose art to the interesting landing gear to the cockpit, very cool.
I have to admit, I never tried out satuzuki65’s original build, but I am so impressed with the research, thought, attention to detail—and...no infinite fuel!!! Bonus! And it actually flies well! This is a “in your face” to all those high ranked builders who resort to tricks in their builds. Beautiful work, here’s a Spotlight!
+2Finally, a truly great M1, the most lethal MBT in history.
@RamboJutter I think he just cut and ran. I saw the post which said, “results decided,” but I never saw who won or anything. This is the second challenge where I’ve seen this happen, I’m going to carefully reconsider future participation in challenges because if the host doesn’t have the experience, resources or patience to actually make videos and post results, then forget it.
Looks good, if you want a suggestion on where to focus your building efforts, I would concentrate on those vertical stabs, making those out of shaped fuselage block sections, with rudders moving via rotators.
+1@LeonardoEngineering well, the weight reduction, specifically. You don’t need it plus it detracts from the realism. Most jets this size will weigh at least 20,000 lbs—or if you prefer, 9,072 kg. The T-50, which this seems to be modeled on grosses out at 27,300 lbs (12,300 kg). This one weighs less than a P-51. So, you didn’t need to go to a 9 lbs/sq ft wing loading. I do appreciate that you limited the horizontal stab movement to keep the pitch rate realistic, but part of the challenge of a jet like this is landing it and that’s more difficult with a realistic wing loading. If you were having a difficult time with CG, you could also move the engine’s CG forward—that’s where it is on real jets as the tail pipe and AB sections are far longer than in SP. But for that aspect and a bit of XML drag reduction which would help the very brisk acceleration, it’s a gorgeous build.
Not bad for your points especially. I wouldn’t have employed some of the tricks you did, but not bad overall.
+2So, while the Convair 880 was designed as the fastest airliner and it flew faster than contemporary airliners in level flight, it never exceeded the speed of sound. However, little known fact is that the Douglas DC-8 was actually flown supersonic in a dive during a flight test! Can’t wait to see your completed build, though.
+1Genius idea linking the brake with the rotator and the increased friction.
Frankly, I’m surprised this didn’t get more attention, it’s nicely rendered, flies nicely, looks good, interesting subject.
Wow, nice rendition of a gorgeous bird!
😃👍
It works, at least you have both controls separate, not combined like so many builds I see out there. Nice build, really, I rather enjoyed flying it around.
Great build, flies just like a light plane should, trim and flaps controls reversed—yeah, yeah, you know, whatever, great build, I like it!
+1Nice! You fixed it, flies quite well now.
@BaconAircraft funny, hadn’t thought about it that way, you’re right Scott Manley does say that at the end of his videos. I say it because my T-37 pilot training flight commander used to say it at the end of his morning briefings around 25 years ago. I subsequently used it to close my briefings....soooo...I thought if it first!!!!
@Razor3278 yes, agree with both those comments, thought about adding them, but wanted to keep it to three succinct points. But thanks for the input!
Also, I suggest this website: The Blueprints. For your next replica, download a drawing (with a scale on it) and make some measurements. This build is close, but the outer mold lines are not right on.
I’m going to Spotlight this and follow you now. You’re a quality builder, no reason why you shouldn’t be gold by now, just keep working!
This is a good build, certainly better than 90-95% out there, especially that landing gear, very nice. A couple of things I might have done differently include incorporating trim, not this loopy flap with trim thing non-pilots like to do. I would have also used the standard tire, not the off-road tire, looks out of place.
This is pretty good. May I make a few advanced suggestions that might get you a few more notices? First, the presentation isn’t great. I know, people say the default screenshot display (black and grey background) is boring but it works and I still use it. Here’s why: it’s the same reason Apple still allows you to tap on a photo in your phone and view it with a black background. The eye is drawn to the color contrast and sees the object on display. Here, your build disappears into the tan background. It just does, sorry.
@GhostHTX perhaps not...
A beautiful interpretation of the world’s current winner of “prettiest airliner.” And it flies fantastically well, great job!
+1@Spacedoge12345plane it is.
Only one tip for next time...in 25 years of flying, I have never met a flap lever that was pushed up to extend the flaps, they all work the other way 😉
Nice features and quite whimsical, it convinces me that it might have been real!
I might actually use this template, I would just use an SP wing for the bottom surface, probably scaled, and replace the upper surface with a fuse block.
+1@Chancey21 is correct, it will be really difficult to make your airplane fly correctly with the wings angled like that. This is a great starting point for building curved airfoils, but you can simplify the design a bit, there are many RL wing shapes, most in fact have lower leading edges which are curved around, some are symmetrical (most fighter aircraft), others are thinner. Bottom line, do a little research, use the above as a template, but don’t worry if your wing design doesn’t exactly match the one above.
+2Awesome build!
@Mostly I’ll agree with you for the most part, but, for it’s time, I would say the MiG-15 might have been the best fighter in the world, until the more advanced Sabres gave it a run for its money.
+1People interested in this discussion might also be interested in this video concerning Soviets testing the F-5 Tiger II.
Soviet (now Russian) design philosophy: Rugged and simple to maintain, inexpensive, GCI dependent (centralized control), high performance aerodynamics
+1Western design philosophy: Stealth (current day), high tech, electronics and computer heavy, ultra high performance in both aerodynamics and systems capabilities, multi-role whenever possible, cost is not a factor (we talk about keeping cost down, but, in the end, we'll still pay a lot for cutting edge capability)
@CRJ900Pilot I had no idea you were working on this magnum opus, that's all...
Someone’s been keeping a secret...
@BACconcordepilot again, are we talking about MiG fighters or Tupolev, which built mostly bombers?
+1@tsampoy nah, that’s overly harsh. The MiG-15? Not a copy, looks kinda like a Sabre, but if you look closely, the nose intake and swept wing is most of the similarity, but the German invention of the swept wing was used at the same time by both the Soviets and West. The MiG-19? Definitely less advanced than the Super Sabre, so, not a copy, the Hun has features the Soviets would have copied if they could, like the all moving stab. So, not a copy. The MiG-21? Copy of what? There isn’t anything similar in design or concept until, arguably the F-16A’s original concept, perhaps the F-8 Crusader...kinda same concept, vastly different designs. Same thing MiG-23/27. MiG-25? Preceded the Eagle and was vastly inferior but for top speed and altitude, where it was superior. MiG-29, sort of a cross between the F-16 and F-17/18, but dissimilar to both in design. So, no, don’t think so. There might be elements of MiG designs “borrowed” from the West without permission, but, they’re much more original than you give credit for. Oh, yeah, there are zero MiG bombers, Mikoyan Guervich builds only fighters.
+7There are also Sukhoi and Tupolev fighters from the Soviet era.
I’m wondering from your question whether you are using the term “MiG” to refer to any Soviet-era fighter...?
They’re actually pretty good airplanes, depending on your definition. They’re rugged, tend to turn well at low to medium altitudes, are usually very fast for their time. They tend to be heavily armed and are usually less expensive than their Western counterparts. They do not tend to be as advanced as their Western counterparts (exceptions to this include the MiG-15). Their design philosophy is different: Their engines are designed to last a shorter period time and changed out wholely instead of being carefully maintained over time. The idea is that it would be easier to simply swap the entire engine in combat. Weapons are hit and miss on whether they are more advanced. The AA-2 was a copy of the early Sidewinder (recovered from a Chinese jet shot by a Taiwanese F-86 equipped with AIM-9B), the AA-10C and AA-11 are very advanced, in some ways superior to the AIM-120 and AIM-9. However, the West and US particularly, have embraced the smart bomb revolution so that’s not even a competition there.
+5Good idea. Just don’t fly it at more than 10% throttle!