@AikoFoxNeko good. Now, you should work on flight characteristics. In order to attain realism in your replicas, you need to make them reasonably easier to takeoff and land, plus turn realistically. There are ways of doing all those things in SP. Since you’re trying to build a Blackbird (by no means an easy build), download this 3-view of the jet. It has a scale next to it which is vitally important in getting proportions correct—in SP, 2 units equal 1 meter. Don’t get caught up in details, just get the proportions of the major parts, fuselage, wings, tail, landing gear placement correct. The Blueprints sure is great for 3-views, almost everything is on there.
@AikoFoxNeko and you have not yet discovered that you can search “parts” in SP. Both structural wings with control surfaces and more powerful engines are freely available for you to use. Go to highest rated builds of all time, find a parts pack (many towards the top of the list), click on the “Parts” tag. That’s what I did when I built this on iOS.
@AikoFoxNeko there’s no difference between planes flying 800 mph or 2000 mph in SP. Besides, in RL, the different airspeed regimes are around .8 M to M 1.0 (transonic), then faster than Mach 1.0 (supersonic), and faster than around Mach 4 (hypersonic), all of which actually don’t correlate at all in SP. There are no Mach effects, no rapid increase in drag in transonic flight, no Mach tuck and no shockwave. Going faster simply increases drag on an exponential curve and requires an exponential power increase. If you can build an 800 mph airplane in SP, you can build a 2,000 mph in SP. The difficult part is building an airplane that can take off well (i.e., rotates at/around 200 mph or less, accelerates realistically, is controllable on takeoff...no wild swerving) and land well (controllable in pitch, roll and yaw at approach speeds—around 200 mph or less, has enough nose up trim to fly hands off, enough pitch authority to flare and not bang the nosegear or explode on touchdown and is controllable on touchdown). THAT’S the challenge in SP. Flying faster than 800 mph in SP is not a challenge. All you need is to XML edit structural wings and engine power. Anyone can do that, no problem.
@F104Deathtrap I don’t think so. It’s a fair question. It’s not even as far as comparing an Me-110 and a Corsair, both fighters, but with vastly different approaches. Though how they were used was different, their aims were similar, that is to attain and keep air superiority (modern definition).
@randomusername some points are valid, but many simply aren’t true or understandable without building experience. This guy has 119 points, perhaps the basics or more explanation would be more useful. Better yet, how about he links you to his build and you can try and analyze what’s wring with the build. He’ll learn better that way.
@RailfanEthan you know how it happened, right? The Po-2 didn’t shoot it down. The Po-2 was flying a night harassment sortie, as they typically did in Korea. The F-94 slowed down and flew a stern conversion just above stall. When it fired on the Po-2, the Starfire stalled, spun in and crashed due to the recoil from the guns. That’s how it happened, Bro. But, a kill is a kill.
Let me give you some more food for thought on this. When the Fw-190 appeared in WWII, even the Spit Mk V has trouble dealing with it, especially at low altitudes. A real shock to the RAF who never saw that coming. The Mustang was more than a match for the Fw, however.
@ThePilotDude totally disagree. Spit was a much earlier design...upgraded, but still earlier inception. Mustang (from the B version onward) had same engine, but had better range and was for the most part, faster and higher flying due to laminar flow wing and clever radiator design. Each was right for their time, however the US flew Spits briefly, which were replaced by P-47s and, eventually, P-51s. The Americans who had to trade in their Spits for Thunderbolts lamented, but no one lamented getting Mustangs.
Kind of a debatable point..:how so better? More advanced, better armed, faster, higher flying, longer ranged, more enemies destroyed, most produced, longest surviving, more survivable...? Frame the question more tightly and you’ll get more intelligent responses vs fanboy responses from both sides of the Spitfire vs Mustang crowd. But, at least your asking aircraft related questions. Not so long ago some idiot asked “is anyone here a furry?” Moron. Keep asking good questions, we need more of this on the forums.
A reverse engineered B-29 with turboprops and a radar antenna...very interesting. Too bad the yokes got attached at the wrong point, otherwise I really like the cockpit. But, what are the two red crescents in the cockpit supposed to be? Also, accelerates too quickly. But it flies nicely.
Looks great, the J50 restriction really hurts your build here. I really appreciate your audacity in entering a jet that can’t turn well into this tourney. I entered an “F-100”...notice the quotes ...but chickened out because I wanted a shot at winning. Props to you for sticking to your guns!
Gee, why did you stop at one gun? If you want to win this you should have loaded it out with 4 guns, the max for this challenge. I like the looks though.
Well, it’s not a “minigun” anyway. It’s an M61A2 Vulcan 20mm multi barrel cannon. A “minigun” is an M134 7.62 mm gun that’s significantly smaller lighter and less powerful than the Vulcan. Plus, the standard 7.62 mm NATO round doesn’t explode on contact like the 20 mm round which is optimized to destroy other aircraft.
I like the 450 hp option better...more realistic, but I can see why you went with the higher power, much snappier and easier to fly! Nice work at any rate!
A little faster than the real thing, but beautiful work, was able to land it successfully on the first try, so I appreciate the fact you included the increased drag on the tail skid.
@F104Deathtrap yes I too am frustrated with the forums...they’re meant to allow discussion on builds or airplanes and airplane related topics, but instead have devolved into a collection of crap, feelings and “I’m leaving or I’m back” posts. Sad.
@F104Deathtrap sure. That way people have to think before they post, otherwise they lose their opportunity; at the same time it doesn’t stink of censorship.
A limit is fine, but 3 is a better limit than 1, IMHO. If it’s limited too much, it’ll have the opposite effect than intended, that is, to kill the forum traffic.
@Simba4999 I realize that, but I can’t bring myself to do that; there has to be a hint of realism in my creations, which means they need to be able to takeoff and land.
@Sarin as much as you think you need. AI dogfights usually take a lot longer than in RL, however not as long as what a builder might usually equip a plane with. I go for a light fuel load to keep weight down, wing loading low and maneuverability high. Hopefully that helps my build get the kill before I flameout...but that’s all part of the challenge. As for infinite fuel should always be banned in challenges!
@YuraCat, here's my submission to your tourney. I hope you will accept it. Stock engine, fuel, wings, drag, CG and guns. I used a bit of XML tweaking for appearance sake, but hewed to the spirit of your rules. I used FineTuner to resize the cockpit to fit under the outlines of the RL canopy...I simply wanted players to be able to see through the gunsight if they wanted to fly it around. I used FineTuner to resize the landing gear to fit the build. I used a bit of XML editing to give the canopy a nice sheen, as well as to disable the mesh on the rotators for the horizontal stab, just didn't want huge, unslightly rotator bodies sticking out the bottom of the airplane. I would have decked it out with a lot of awesome decals, as in my original 1:1 F-100, but that would have required XML for weight and drag and I thought maybe that would be taking it too far. By the way, I still HATE the AI!!!
And if so, can I XML the landing gear to be smaller. Here’s the problem: SP drag model is way too high, so in order to have a realistically performing aircraft, you have to build small...buuut the SP stock LG is way outsized when building small.
Ok, the laser beam cannons are a bit silly and it should roll a little faster, while pitching a little more slowly (I scraped the pilot off the inside of the canopy). It should also fly a little more slowly, especially at S.L., but there’s a lot of passion in this build and I appreciate that.
I always liked the Barrel, kind of an F-86 alternative from those ingenious Swedes.
I have no idea how you manage all the details on iOS. Nice work as always.
@AikoFoxNeko good. Now, you should work on flight characteristics. In order to attain realism in your replicas, you need to make them reasonably easier to takeoff and land, plus turn realistically. There are ways of doing all those things in SP. Since you’re trying to build a Blackbird (by no means an easy build), download this 3-view of the jet. It has a scale next to it which is vitally important in getting proportions correct—in SP, 2 units equal 1 meter. Don’t get caught up in details, just get the proportions of the major parts, fuselage, wings, tail, landing gear placement correct. The Blueprints sure is great for 3-views, almost everything is on there.
What’s your old handle?
Here’s the same pack, someone added a structural wing. Good luck
Here is a useful engine pack I’ve used in the past.
@AikoFoxNeko and you have not yet discovered that you can search “parts” in SP. Both structural wings with control surfaces and more powerful engines are freely available for you to use. Go to highest rated builds of all time, find a parts pack (many towards the top of the list), click on the “Parts” tag. That’s what I did when I built this on iOS.
@AikoFoxNeko there’s no difference between planes flying 800 mph or 2000 mph in SP. Besides, in RL, the different airspeed regimes are around .8 M to M 1.0 (transonic), then faster than Mach 1.0 (supersonic), and faster than around Mach 4 (hypersonic), all of which actually don’t correlate at all in SP. There are no Mach effects, no rapid increase in drag in transonic flight, no Mach tuck and no shockwave. Going faster simply increases drag on an exponential curve and requires an exponential power increase. If you can build an 800 mph airplane in SP, you can build a 2,000 mph in SP. The difficult part is building an airplane that can take off well (i.e., rotates at/around 200 mph or less, accelerates realistically, is controllable on takeoff...no wild swerving) and land well (controllable in pitch, roll and yaw at approach speeds—around 200 mph or less, has enough nose up trim to fly hands off, enough pitch authority to flare and not bang the nosegear or explode on touchdown and is controllable on touchdown). THAT’S the challenge in SP. Flying faster than 800 mph in SP is not a challenge. All you need is to XML edit structural wings and engine power. Anyone can do that, no problem.
@F104Deathtrap I don’t think so. It’s a fair question. It’s not even as far as comparing an Me-110 and a Corsair, both fighters, but with vastly different approaches. Though how they were used was different, their aims were similar, that is to attain and keep air superiority (modern definition).
+1Put the rear landing gear much closer to the CoM, as in RL. Then, the aircraft can pivot around them at a much lower speed on takeoff and fly.
@randomusername some points are valid, but many simply aren’t true or understandable without building experience. This guy has 119 points, perhaps the basics or more explanation would be more useful. Better yet, how about he links you to his build and you can try and analyze what’s wring with the build. He’ll learn better that way.
+1@RailfanEthan you know how it happened, right? The Po-2 didn’t shoot it down. The Po-2 was flying a night harassment sortie, as they typically did in Korea. The F-94 slowed down and flew a stern conversion just above stall. When it fired on the Po-2, the Starfire stalled, spun in and crashed due to the recoil from the guns. That’s how it happened, Bro. But, a kill is a kill.
+1@RailfanEthan are you talking about the F-94, I think it was, that spun in trying to shoot down a Po-2 in Korea? You are correct.
+3Let me give you some more food for thought on this. When the Fw-190 appeared in WWII, even the Spit Mk V has trouble dealing with it, especially at low altitudes. A real shock to the RAF who never saw that coming. The Mustang was more than a match for the Fw, however.
+1@ThePilotDude totally disagree. Spit was a much earlier design...upgraded, but still earlier inception. Mustang (from the B version onward) had same engine, but had better range and was for the most part, faster and higher flying due to laminar flow wing and clever radiator design. Each was right for their time, however the US flew Spits briefly, which were replaced by P-47s and, eventually, P-51s. The Americans who had to trade in their Spits for Thunderbolts lamented, but no one lamented getting Mustangs.
+1Kind of a debatable point..:how so better? More advanced, better armed, faster, higher flying, longer ranged, more enemies destroyed, most produced, longest surviving, more survivable...? Frame the question more tightly and you’ll get more intelligent responses vs fanboy responses from both sides of the Spitfire vs Mustang crowd. But, at least your asking aircraft related questions. Not so long ago some idiot asked “is anyone here a furry?” Moron. Keep asking good questions, we need more of this on the forums.
+1@jamesPLANESii really? P-51, longer range, faster for the most common versions (D vs V), more enemy destroyed. How is the Spit “better”?
+1A reverse engineered B-29 with turboprops and a radar antenna...very interesting. Too bad the yokes got attached at the wrong point, otherwise I really like the cockpit. But, what are the two red crescents in the cockpit supposed to be? Also, accelerates too quickly. But it flies nicely.
Nice work, especially on the little things such as the flap details—something not many would see. Good performance, looks great, great build.
+1Looks great, the J50 restriction really hurts your build here. I really appreciate your audacity in entering a jet that can’t turn well into this tourney. I entered an “F-100”...notice the quotes ...but chickened out because I wanted a shot at winning. Props to you for sticking to your guns!
Gee, why did you stop at one gun? If you want to win this you should have loaded it out with 4 guns, the max for this challenge. I like the looks though.
Looks great, like a T-50, in my book. Flies well (I would have detuned the elevator by 50% for realism). Nice work, I like it.
@BogdanX here you go again, your 12 hour reminder, thanks again in advance!
@BogdanX any way you can overlay a 3 view over this build and tell me what I would need to change for accuracy?
Well, it’s not a “minigun” anyway. It’s an M61A2 Vulcan 20mm multi barrel cannon. A “minigun” is an M134 7.62 mm gun that’s significantly smaller lighter and less powerful than the Vulcan. Plus, the standard 7.62 mm NATO round doesn’t explode on contact like the 20 mm round which is optimized to destroy other aircraft.
+1Not bad!
I like the 450 hp option better...more realistic, but I can see why you went with the higher power, much snappier and easier to fly! Nice work at any rate!
A little faster than the real thing, but beautiful work, was able to land it successfully on the first try, so I appreciate the fact you included the increased drag on the tail skid.
I like it. I like it a lot.
@mikoyanster link you to this?
+1Have you heard anything from @Yuracat? I submitted my entry 4 days ago and not words at all from him.
+1@F104Deathtrap yes I too am frustrated with the forums...they’re meant to allow discussion on builds or airplanes and airplane related topics, but instead have devolved into a collection of crap, feelings and “I’m leaving or I’m back” posts. Sad.
+4Of course it’s all academic and not up to us to decide.
@F104Deathtrap sure. That way people have to think before they post, otherwise they lose their opportunity; at the same time it doesn’t stink of censorship.
A limit is fine, but 3 is a better limit than 1, IMHO. If it’s limited too much, it’ll have the opposite effect than intended, that is, to kill the forum traffic.
Very easy to fly assault landings to Bandit Airfield. Fun to fly, I like the work with the drag reduction, accelerates pretty realistically.
@ChiChiWerx yeah, quality build, really, really good, your best so far. Lands easily, as well (I.e., not impossible).
Great build, flies very realistically. How fast have you gotten this? I can get to 400 mph at around 10,000' or so.
@Simba4999 I realize that, but I can’t bring myself to do that; there has to be a hint of realism in my creations, which means they need to be able to takeoff and land.
I was thinking of entering a HAL Ajeet as well, but you beat me to the punch!
+1Amen, Brother!
+1@Sarin as much as you think you need. AI dogfights usually take a lot longer than in RL, however not as long as what a builder might usually equip a plane with. I go for a light fuel load to keep weight down, wing loading low and maneuverability high. Hopefully that helps my build get the kill before I flameout...but that’s all part of the challenge. As for infinite fuel should always be banned in challenges!
Great build, this thing is going to be lethal in the tourney!
@Tang0five no worries, thanks! 😃👍. I think I’m finally done building F-100s...but I already thought I was done with Huns until I saw this challenge!
@YuraCat, here's my submission to your tourney. I hope you will accept it. Stock engine, fuel, wings, drag, CG and guns. I used a bit of XML tweaking for appearance sake, but hewed to the spirit of your rules. I used FineTuner to resize the cockpit to fit under the outlines of the RL canopy...I simply wanted players to be able to see through the gunsight if they wanted to fly it around. I used FineTuner to resize the landing gear to fit the build. I used a bit of XML editing to give the canopy a nice sheen, as well as to disable the mesh on the rotators for the horizontal stab, just didn't want huge, unslightly rotator bodies sticking out the bottom of the airplane. I would have decked it out with a lot of awesome decals, as in my original 1:1 F-100, but that would have required XML for weight and drag and I thought maybe that would be taking it too far. By the way, I still HATE the AI!!!
+1@Sarin read this: Infinite Fuel, The Dumbest Thing in SP
And if so, can I XML the landing gear to be smaller. Here’s the problem: SP drag model is way too high, so in order to have a realistically performing aircraft, you have to build small...buuut the SP stock LG is way outsized when building small.
Does it need landing gear or be able to takeoff or land?
Nice maritime patrol bomber!
+1Ok, the laser beam cannons are a bit silly and it should roll a little faster, while pitching a little more slowly (I scraped the pilot off the inside of the canopy). It should also fly a little more slowly, especially at S.L., but there’s a lot of passion in this build and I appreciate that.