A tip that speaks to KLM’s point concerning the RL gross weight of the aircraft, SP includes the area of the vertical and horizontal stabilizers, so your number in the designer will not reflect the true “wing area”, as understood in real life. The workaround is to look up the RL wing area (Wiki lists the C-5 wing area as 6,200 sq ft), add the wings and size them to 6,200 sq ft. Once that’s sorted, then add the vertical and horizontal stabs; this way your build will more closely reflect the RL lifting capability. As for the jittery landing gear, yes, SP is very annoying, there are workarounds, but tweaking masses and lowering forward reaction does minimize these issues.
@DJRianGamer004 where did you get that idea? We have 56 C-5Ms currently in the inventory, upgraded with new engines (GE F138 / CF6, same as the 747) and avionics.
This is really good, the flight model is excellent. It is certainly underweight and overpowered, but it feels like flying a big jet. The build is complete without being needlessly complex.
Flies nicely, though a bomb bay and bombs would be a nice addition later. By all accounts the Victor was a maneuverable and fast jet bomber, this reflects that nicely, though I would judge the roll rate a tad faster than what was likely with the RL jet. Using the smaller J90s, rather than the BFE150s would have gotten you build very close to the RL jet, though I think you wisely reduced the thrust on the bigger engines (on my phone right now, so difficult to tell for sure what you did). Also, this is fairly lighter than a RL Victor, being 15,000 lbs lighter empty and half as heavy fully loaded (100,000 vs. 200,000 lbs.). I’d rectify both weights by adding about 15,000 lbs of dead weight to your build, as well as the RL bomb load and a LOT more fuel. But don’t change the CG point as the pitch authority is about right as you have it now. Bombers on what was probably a one way nuc mission took off at max weight for max range strikes. Last, it has way too much pitch up with flap extension…I’d half the effect. If it were me, I’d make your next version of your build that way as well. Nice build.
@Kangy disagree; many SP builders think a G limiter FT function on the horizontal stab will restrict the G loading on a replica build and result in realistic maneuverability, but that’s not how jets (particular designs from the 1950s) work. Jets almost always have a performance reserve which allows the pilots to over G, if necessary, though pilots are trained to keep their aircraft within G limits by monitoring the G meter during maneuvering flight. F-4 pilots could and frequently accidentally did over G their jets, especially in combat. There are also maintenance inspections that are required following an over G and most jets of this type have strain plates (often in the wing roots) which will crack or deform if the jet is over G’d. Also, most versions of the F-4 had a +8.5 symmetrical G limit at lighter weights, though it certainly couldn’t sustain that loading in level flight and that’s also a gross generalization as version, load out, weight, altitude, whether or not the aileron is displaced (asymmetrical flight) and speed all affected the max allowed G loading.
So, interesting simple build, very engaging. I downloaded this onto an iPhone and noticed that the activation formula for the reaction jets shows “Error”. What was the original FT formula meant to be?
@AndrewGarrison please tell me for the ASI can select knots and that it will display IAS, so that it will indicate properly like every RL airplane I’ve flown in the past 35 years! Also hoping for a Mach meter, the formula is not that difficult, if you assume standard day conditions for temperature. But this is great, can’t wait to see the update!
@AN2Felllla did some testing and you are correct, stock LG does reduce the drag when retracted. I’m surprised I didn’t know that, but the effect takes a few seconds to realize and I don’t really use the stock LG. However, bombs add zero drag to a build when added and drag does not adjust when they’re expended. It’s also a problem when building custom gravity munitions, the hit predictor doesn’t work correctly for custom weapons.
Afterburner part that can be added to any of the jet engines with a user-selectable slider that increases the amount of thrust augmentation, but, at the same time, increases fuel consumption.
Rudder-induced roll. IRL, when stepping on the rudder, the effect is that the advancing wing produces more lift and resultant roll (generally). However, SP only the cockpit “sees” the airflow, there’s no differentiating on how the airflow differs between the two wings and pressing on the rudder doesn’t produce any difference in airflow between the two sides.
Quite fun, very stable. Fairly realistic handling characteristics, IMHO. Probably a little too fast, especially at low altitude…450 KTAS at S.L., not impossible, but that’s pretty fast for down low in thick air with those big compressor faces and hanging missiles. Nice rotary bomb bay. I can land it on the boat fairly easily, though the front L.G. is too weak (breaks off on landing at 140-150 KIAS) and it needs more nose up trim. The highlight is the fact that it’s intriguing enough to hold my attention as I investigate all the tricks you’ve incorporated.
I like a couple of things here: First, you used the symmetric wing, which really imparts the correct “feel” to the flight model. And the flight model as a whole is pretty good. Though I’m never a fan of unlimited fuel, I’ll let that one go unnoticed. Nice work!
Nice build. However, it doesn’t bleed the energy in hard turns like the RL jet. The RL jet turns very well for the first 90 degrees, but loses a LOT of energy (airspeed) in the process due to that delta wing’s ability to bite into the air, also creating a lot of drag in the process.
Hey, quick question: trying to get your build to do the counter roll behavior. Which parameters do I have to be in to get it to display that behavior? I also lowered the sideways traction on the nose gear wheels and raised it on the main gear. Fixed the swerving issues on takeoff. As I love the Phantom and this build is nice, simple, looks great, it’s on my “Favorites” list!
@EngineerOtaku you’re correct, the lack of rudder authority is a big drawback of SP, not the fault of any builders who are trying to model accurate behavior. IRL, the rudder doesn’t actually roll the airplane as much as it yaws the airplane. The yaw, in turn, causes the opposite wing to advance through the air, relative the other wing. This causes an increase in lift on one side and the resultant roll. Since (I think) SP just looks at how fast the cockpit is advancing through the “air”, there are no differences in airflow across different parts of the build. Thus, there’s no such thing as rudder roll on SP, unless happened upon by accident.
I myself built one of these in deep, dark ages past. Here, the charm of this build is the low part count and general fun-to-fly nature (better than my early attempt). This is great as the RL jet handled well and was fun to fly. The big miss, though, IMHO, is the lack of weapons. The RL jet had a rotary bomb bay (very cool) and 8 (EIGHT…!) 20 mm cannon. It would be just so much fun to shred the convoys with 8 cannons firing in a concentrated pattern!
I’ve accidentally captured that counterroll tendency myself. IRL, Phantom pilots did not reverse their aileron inputs when pulling Gs (high AoA), they frequently used the rudder for roll, or just did the standard technique of pull-unload-roll using aileron-pull.
@CharlesDeGaulle wow, ok, got it. But even discounting stealth as you do, this matchup has been done before; higher performance jets have engaged subsonic VTOL fighters in combat, 1982 in the South Atlantic, Fleet Air Arm SHARs vs Fuerza Aérea Argentina Mirage III. Didn’t turn out that well for Argentina. And for many reasons we can discuss (armament, training, distances, etc.). But don’t overestimate the value of sheer performance against other factors.
That particular picture is a test pitot boom, that one isn’t the production version that the F-35 normally uses. Pitot booms or probes come in many shapes and sizes, here’s one carried on a 737, for comparison. The pitot probes look like little tubes and often you’ll see what looks like a small, swiveling wing in the same area, which would be the angle of attack indicator.
@edensk interesting…so does using “dragScale=0” negate induced drag which increases with increased AoA? If so, what’s your preferred method to increase drag in game during increased AoA (I.e., pulling G, slow flight)? Another potential issue would be the “stall break” associated with the curved airfoil, which is characterized by the sharp nose drop, vice a symmetric airfoil’s tendency to develop a high AoA, high rate sink. It would also be interesting to measure fuel consumption comparing the stock symmetric airfoil, the stock curved airfoil and your modified curved airfoil. I’ve compared the first two and the fuel efficiency is 30-40% better with the symmetric airfoil at high speeds. Obviously have not tried yours for comparison purposes. So, yes, sure, the stock symmetrical airfoil’s 13 degree critical AoA is less than what modern FBW fighters demonstrate, but consider much of that lift is generated by the fuse itself (hardly ever modeled in game), those canards which move to maintain lift (remaining below critical AoA) and >1:1 T:W ratio, all mixed together in the flight control computer. I wonder if someone might write a more advanced FT formula to allow for post-stall maneuvering. So, not sure I’m convinced yet that the >13 degree through 27.5 degree AoA ability is worth the trade offs with fuel consumption and flying qualities…besides, the only time those jets really exploit those capabilities IRL are during the demo and if in trouble when getting really slow in the knife fight. Don’t think many SP players go into those regimes, but I may be wrong. I certainly would, if the build was capable of it. Not convinced yet, but I’m willing to consider alternative approaches.
@edensk or just use a symmetric airfoil and dispense with the induced drag at zero angle of attack, which is a characteristic of the flat-bottomed Cessna light plane airfoil design.
@Formula350 thanks. Yes, this one was created a long, long time ago when I was just learning and before dragScale zero was enabled, so one had to accept drag from even small details, such as the insignia. Also before I figured out how to avoid the dreaded auto roll! Anyway, appreciate the work, nice job!
This is excellent. My only complaint is the unlimited fuel and negative weight, which is a big one, but the flight model is good and the construction is well executed.
@Formula350 SB = Speed Brakes. And gotcha that you were referring to changing the AoA attributes as they pertain to the wing, while I was discussing how to utilize AoA as an input in an FT formula! Anyway, sorry for the confusion.
Doesn’t really fly like a Phantom…if I were to describe it, I’d say it flies more like an egg!
+1@RC1138Boss seriously, what.
A tip that speaks to KLM’s point concerning the RL gross weight of the aircraft, SP includes the area of the vertical and horizontal stabilizers, so your number in the designer will not reflect the true “wing area”, as understood in real life. The workaround is to look up the RL wing area (Wiki lists the C-5 wing area as 6,200 sq ft), add the wings and size them to 6,200 sq ft. Once that’s sorted, then add the vertical and horizontal stabs; this way your build will more closely reflect the RL lifting capability. As for the jittery landing gear, yes, SP is very annoying, there are workarounds, but tweaking masses and lowering forward reaction does minimize these issues.
@DJRianGamer004 where did you get that idea? We have 56 C-5Ms currently in the inventory, upgraded with new engines (GE F138 / CF6, same as the 747) and avionics.
This is really good, the flight model is excellent. It is certainly underweight and overpowered, but it feels like flying a big jet. The build is complete without being needlessly complex.
Flies nicely, though a bomb bay and bombs would be a nice addition later. By all accounts the Victor was a maneuverable and fast jet bomber, this reflects that nicely, though I would judge the roll rate a tad faster than what was likely with the RL jet. Using the smaller J90s, rather than the BFE150s would have gotten you build very close to the RL jet, though I think you wisely reduced the thrust on the bigger engines (on my phone right now, so difficult to tell for sure what you did). Also, this is fairly lighter than a RL Victor, being 15,000 lbs lighter empty and half as heavy fully loaded (100,000 vs. 200,000 lbs.). I’d rectify both weights by adding about 15,000 lbs of dead weight to your build, as well as the RL bomb load and a LOT more fuel. But don’t change the CG point as the pitch authority is about right as you have it now. Bombers on what was probably a one way nuc mission took off at max weight for max range strikes. Last, it has way too much pitch up with flap extension…I’d half the effect. If it were me, I’d make your next version of your build that way as well. Nice build.
+8No splitter plates for the intakes?
@Kangy disagree; many SP builders think a G limiter FT function on the horizontal stab will restrict the G loading on a replica build and result in realistic maneuverability, but that’s not how jets (particular designs from the 1950s) work. Jets almost always have a performance reserve which allows the pilots to over G, if necessary, though pilots are trained to keep their aircraft within G limits by monitoring the G meter during maneuvering flight. F-4 pilots could and frequently accidentally did over G their jets, especially in combat. There are also maintenance inspections that are required following an over G and most jets of this type have strain plates (often in the wing roots) which will crack or deform if the jet is over G’d. Also, most versions of the F-4 had a +8.5 symmetrical G limit at lighter weights, though it certainly couldn’t sustain that loading in level flight and that’s also a gross generalization as version, load out, weight, altitude, whether or not the aileron is displaced (asymmetrical flight) and speed all affected the max allowed G loading.
+2So, interesting simple build, very engaging. I downloaded this onto an iPhone and noticed that the activation formula for the reaction jets shows “Error”. What was the original FT formula meant to be?
An all-around excellent build, nice work!
+4I assume this works on intakes as well?
+104.
Interesting.
B-29…or Tu-4…😉
+2@HellFireKoder awesome! Sounds like a great update, looking forward to it.
+3@AndrewGarrison please tell me for the ASI can select knots and that it will display IAS, so that it will indicate properly like every RL airplane I’ve flown in the past 35 years! Also hoping for a Mach meter, the formula is not that difficult, if you assume standard day conditions for temperature. But this is great, can’t wait to see the update!
+9It’s entertaining, very simple and reminds me of a Jag. Could use a little more trim, but it’s pretty fun to fly.
F-5?
+2Simple Hornet, I like it.
+1@AN2Felllla did some testing and you are correct, stock LG does reduce the drag when retracted. I’m surprised I didn’t know that, but the effect takes a few seconds to realize and I don’t really use the stock LG. However, bombs add zero drag to a build when added and drag does not adjust when they’re expended. It’s also a problem when building custom gravity munitions, the hit predictor doesn’t work correctly for custom weapons.
+1Semi-circles…now, it’s impossible to build good intakes for Mirage/F-104/etc. without paneling.
+19Flaps.
+9Standard landing gear parts should increase drag when extended and remove that drag when retracted.
+6Better drag model that increases the induced drag penalty but doesn’t overly penalize for parasite drag.
+6Drag on the standard weapons, which decreases the build’s total drag when those weapons are expended.
+1A way of making holes, doors, openings in the hollow fuselage.
+31Rocket engine.
+11Afterburner part that can be added to any of the jet engines with a user-selectable slider that increases the amount of thrust augmentation, but, at the same time, increases fuel consumption.
+16Rudder-induced roll. IRL, when stepping on the rudder, the effect is that the advancing wing produces more lift and resultant roll (generally). However, SP only the cockpit “sees” the airflow, there’s no differentiating on how the airflow differs between the two wings and pressing on the rudder doesn’t produce any difference in airflow between the two sides.
+9Supersonic effects
+28@KfcGaming I’m not inactive, just not very active.
Quite fun, very stable. Fairly realistic handling characteristics, IMHO. Probably a little too fast, especially at low altitude…450 KTAS at S.L., not impossible, but that’s pretty fast for down low in thick air with those big compressor faces and hanging missiles. Nice rotary bomb bay. I can land it on the boat fairly easily, though the front L.G. is too weak (breaks off on landing at 140-150 KIAS) and it needs more nose up trim. The highlight is the fact that it’s intriguing enough to hold my attention as I investigate all the tricks you’ve incorporated.
+1@RC1138Boss not sure what you mean by that…
I like a couple of things here: First, you used the symmetric wing, which really imparts the correct “feel” to the flight model. And the flight model as a whole is pretty good. Though I’m never a fan of unlimited fuel, I’ll let that one go unnoticed. Nice work!
+6Nice build. However, it doesn’t bleed the energy in hard turns like the RL jet. The RL jet turns very well for the first 90 degrees, but loses a LOT of energy (airspeed) in the process due to that delta wing’s ability to bite into the air, also creating a lot of drag in the process.
“F-5E Tiger II”, not “F5E-Tiger II”.
Hey, quick question: trying to get your build to do the counter roll behavior. Which parameters do I have to be in to get it to display that behavior? I also lowered the sideways traction on the nose gear wheels and raised it on the main gear. Fixed the swerving issues on takeoff. As I love the Phantom and this build is nice, simple, looks great, it’s on my “Favorites” list!
@EngineerOtaku you’re correct, the lack of rudder authority is a big drawback of SP, not the fault of any builders who are trying to model accurate behavior. IRL, the rudder doesn’t actually roll the airplane as much as it yaws the airplane. The yaw, in turn, causes the opposite wing to advance through the air, relative the other wing. This causes an increase in lift on one side and the resultant roll. Since (I think) SP just looks at how fast the cockpit is advancing through the “air”, there are no differences in airflow across different parts of the build. Thus, there’s no such thing as rudder roll on SP, unless happened upon by accident.
+1@ACEPILOT109 what do you think of this build?
I myself built one of these in deep, dark ages past. Here, the charm of this build is the low part count and general fun-to-fly nature (better than my early attempt). This is great as the RL jet handled well and was fun to fly. The big miss, though, IMHO, is the lack of weapons. The RL jet had a rotary bomb bay (very cool) and 8 (EIGHT…!) 20 mm cannon. It would be just so much fun to shred the convoys with 8 cannons firing in a concentrated pattern!
Looks good. How’s the flight model coming along?
I’ve accidentally captured that counterroll tendency myself. IRL, Phantom pilots did not reverse their aileron inputs when pulling Gs (high AoA), they frequently used the rudder for roll, or just did the standard technique of pull-unload-roll using aileron-pull.
+1@CharlesDeGaulle wow, ok, got it. But even discounting stealth as you do, this matchup has been done before; higher performance jets have engaged subsonic VTOL fighters in combat, 1982 in the South Atlantic, Fleet Air Arm SHARs vs Fuerza Aérea Argentina Mirage III. Didn’t turn out that well for Argentina. And for many reasons we can discuss (armament, training, distances, etc.). But don’t overestimate the value of sheer performance against other factors.
That particular picture is a test pitot boom, that one isn’t the production version that the F-35 normally uses. Pitot booms or probes come in many shapes and sizes, here’s one carried on a 737, for comparison. The pitot probes look like little tubes and often you’ll see what looks like a small, swiveling wing in the same area, which would be the angle of attack indicator.
+1Stealth.
@edensk interesting…so does using “dragScale=0” negate induced drag which increases with increased AoA? If so, what’s your preferred method to increase drag in game during increased AoA (I.e., pulling G, slow flight)? Another potential issue would be the “stall break” associated with the curved airfoil, which is characterized by the sharp nose drop, vice a symmetric airfoil’s tendency to develop a high AoA, high rate sink. It would also be interesting to measure fuel consumption comparing the stock symmetric airfoil, the stock curved airfoil and your modified curved airfoil. I’ve compared the first two and the fuel efficiency is 30-40% better with the symmetric airfoil at high speeds. Obviously have not tried yours for comparison purposes. So, yes, sure, the stock symmetrical airfoil’s 13 degree critical AoA is less than what modern FBW fighters demonstrate, but consider much of that lift is generated by the fuse itself (hardly ever modeled in game), those canards which move to maintain lift (remaining below critical AoA) and >1:1 T:W ratio, all mixed together in the flight control computer. I wonder if someone might write a more advanced FT formula to allow for post-stall maneuvering. So, not sure I’m convinced yet that the >13 degree through 27.5 degree AoA ability is worth the trade offs with fuel consumption and flying qualities…besides, the only time those jets really exploit those capabilities IRL are during the demo and if in trouble when getting really slow in the knife fight. Don’t think many SP players go into those regimes, but I may be wrong. I certainly would, if the build was capable of it. Not convinced yet, but I’m willing to consider alternative approaches.
@edensk or just use a symmetric airfoil and dispense with the induced drag at zero angle of attack, which is a characteristic of the flat-bottomed Cessna light plane airfoil design.
@Formula350 thanks. Yes, this one was created a long, long time ago when I was just learning and before dragScale zero was enabled, so one had to accept drag from even small details, such as the insignia. Also before I figured out how to avoid the dreaded auto roll! Anyway, appreciate the work, nice job!
This is excellent. My only complaint is the unlimited fuel and negative weight, which is a big one, but the flight model is good and the construction is well executed.
@Formula350 SB = Speed Brakes. And gotcha that you were referring to changing the AoA attributes as they pertain to the wing, while I was discussing how to utilize AoA as an input in an FT formula! Anyway, sorry for the confusion.
+1