@QingyuZhou Dutch roll is a characteristic of swept wing aircraft. When the aircraft path is disturbed along the longitudinal axis (side to side), the aircraft yaws, the leading side swept wing becomes “less swept” in the relative wind and produces more lift. This causes the aircraft to roll. An aircraft with dihedral wants to return to wings level (dynamically stable), so as the leading wing rises, it rises to the point that the vertical lift component becomes less than the opposite, low wing. The low wing then, in turn, produces more lift at that point and reverses the roll to the opposite direction. The cycle repeats itself until either the pilot counteracts it with the proper aileron and rudder input (the exact technique varies from aircraft to aircraft), or an automatic yaw damper mechanism intervenes (almost every large jet has a yaw damper) or the aircraft goes out of control or breaks up. What mystifies me is how this aircraft emulates this because there’s really no relative wind or swept wing effects present in SP. Try it: Fly your build above 35,000’ and start rolling...it will Dutch roll, pretty significantly, just like a real swept wing jet.
Pretty good for a brand new guy...the flaps are where the ailerons should be and the ailerons are where the flaps should be, which would help speed up the roll if they were swapped to where they should be 😃
@GhostHTX yes, been busy. Finally retired from the AF this fall, now flying CRJ 200s for a smaller regional airliner. Between the type training and the schedule and commuting, they’re working us hard, so I don’t get many days at home and my SP time suffers as a result!
Where do you live because I was on our front lawn at my house (Yorktown, Virginia area) and I saw a B-24 lumber past, must have been at 5,000’ or so. Really much louder from the ground than I would have imagined, I thought of WWII when hundreds of those aircraft would have bombed Germany...
By the way, do you screenshot from your PC? I can post pics, but I usually find it far easier to do so from my mobile, though I end up having the controls in the pic as well...
@BaconAircraft, many planes crash at air shows and are still successful in production. I’m 48, hold a BAS in History and have 4,000 thousands hours of flying time in both the USAF and Part 121. I know the Tu-144’s story well and I don’t really lend much stock to a near miss with a Mirage being the primary cause of the crash. The plane was over-stressed by an over-exuberant pilot who may or may not have seen and been trying to avoid another aircraft. Aviation accidents are caused by a chain of events and the chain here was a pilot with something to prove, poor design (cockpit hard to see out of) and-possibly-the other aircraft. If it were a great aircraft, the program would have survived that one incident. But the Concordski’s story is one of an airplane rushed to fly to “beat the West” and prove the superiority of the Soviet system. It was expensive to operate, deafeningly loud inside the cabin, the engine control systems were inferior, relatively short range compared to Concord, the wing design was inferior, it had an extremely high landing speed (early versions even had a landing chute) and ultimately flew only 55 passenger flights (out of 102 scheduled) before a slew of maintenance cancellations and incidents relegated the type to flying cargo. Even the Concord itself was only a limited success and it was a thoroughly more refined design. So, no, I don’t believe the conspiracy theories surrounding the Paris air show crash or the “Evil West” conspiring to bring down the People’s Victory. Sorry.
Well, actually the bomb bay is far more impressive than the gear...did you build that part? Also, I figured out that the “Boom 50” is far larger than the real thing, so I actually scaled the bomb to the correct size of the Mk 82, as well as the Mk 84. The unrealistic part of that is that both my pseudo Mk 82 and Mk 84 is that the “Boom” is the same size regardless of of the scaling.
@Kevinairlines not sure about the scaling issue, I don’t generally scale my aircraft because it throws off the performance compared to the size and weight. This one flies nicely...I can’t quite figure out the function of the rotating parts in the tail boom, though.
Interesting build. You have a pretty good profile view which captures the Spit’s good looks, though I will say the wings aren’t really elliptical.
Duralumin, is an aluminum blend with a couple of other metals.
Yeah, it does actually fly pretty well and shoots crazy fast missiles, but this is much more elegant...
Perhaps this will overtake that donut...
Nice build.
+1Pretty airplane, flies very nicely!
20!
Got it 😉
What is the big lever on the right?
Noice!!! Yeah, the drag reduction thing is huge.
Nice, straightforward build with some interesting detailing. Flies nicely, too.
Again, nice. All the more impressive for having been created on iOS.
+1Quality build
YES
+2Fun little build, though the missile speed is a little ridiculous...
@CaesiciusPlanes well the fastest Gee Bees could fly about 300 mph and by WWII most fighters flew faster than 300 mph.
@CaesiciusPlanes at their time, the Gee Bee racers were the fastest planes in the sky...
@503rdAirborneSoldier it is? I’m not familiar with the original...
The detail here is exquisite, I particularly like the built up wings, fuselage ribbing and the wrapped insignia. Plus it flies really well, bonus!
Great build, looks great, very accurate and flies well!
I like it!
+1@QingyuZhou Dutch roll is a characteristic of swept wing aircraft. When the aircraft path is disturbed along the longitudinal axis (side to side), the aircraft yaws, the leading side swept wing becomes “less swept” in the relative wind and produces more lift. This causes the aircraft to roll. An aircraft with dihedral wants to return to wings level (dynamically stable), so as the leading wing rises, it rises to the point that the vertical lift component becomes less than the opposite, low wing. The low wing then, in turn, produces more lift at that point and reverses the roll to the opposite direction. The cycle repeats itself until either the pilot counteracts it with the proper aileron and rudder input (the exact technique varies from aircraft to aircraft), or an automatic yaw damper mechanism intervenes (almost every large jet has a yaw damper) or the aircraft goes out of control or breaks up. What mystifies me is how this aircraft emulates this because there’s really no relative wind or swept wing effects present in SP. Try it: Fly your build above 35,000’ and start rolling...it will Dutch roll, pretty significantly, just like a real swept wing jet.
+1This is amazing, this thing will actually Dutch roll at altitude! I wonder how since SP doesn’t emulate swept wing effects...
Beautiful work and it flies great!
This thing is absolutely amazing and flies great. Nice job on the flaps/speed brakes, canopies and bomb trapeze.
+1Flies very nicely, though! 👍
Pretty good for a brand new guy...the flaps are where the ailerons should be and the ailerons are where the flaps should be, which would help speed up the roll if they were swapped to where they should be 😃
+1@BoeyingOfficial well, pretty close to the real 377 anyways!
Why the fictional tag? This is a replica of a real-world airplane.
Fantastic...and I almost never pay attention to non-aircraft builds!
@GhostHTX yes, been busy. Finally retired from the AF this fall, now flying CRJ 200s for a smaller regional airliner. Between the type training and the schedule and commuting, they’re working us hard, so I don’t get many days at home and my SP time suffers as a result!
Some interesting build techniques here as well.
Flies well, shoots well, realistic fuel, nice!
Nice! Very stable, IMHO.
Nice!
@BaconAircraft thanks!
Read your post again...Cali, so I wonder, are there two flyable B-24s in the US right now?
Where do you live because I was on our front lawn at my house (Yorktown, Virginia area) and I saw a B-24 lumber past, must have been at 5,000’ or so. Really much louder from the ground than I would have imagined, I thought of WWII when hundreds of those aircraft would have bombed Germany...
+2By the way, do you screenshot from your PC? I can post pics, but I usually find it far easier to do so from my mobile, though I end up having the controls in the pic as well...
Some fantastic details here, should be interesting dissecting your build!
Well, it looks great, can’t wait to see the end result!
A perfectionist...nice just job here!
Well, it sure is pretty
Interesting. Try adding gyroscopes for stability...kind of fun to try and fly
+2Finland...reason? Simple, the Fins had the most success with the type while fighting the Soviets.
Very nice, actually looks like a Fitter well th nice details. Flies well...I was surprised to see how small it was compared to my 1:1 Super Sabre!
@BaconAircraft, many planes crash at air shows and are still successful in production. I’m 48, hold a BAS in History and have 4,000 thousands hours of flying time in both the USAF and Part 121. I know the Tu-144’s story well and I don’t really lend much stock to a near miss with a Mirage being the primary cause of the crash. The plane was over-stressed by an over-exuberant pilot who may or may not have seen and been trying to avoid another aircraft. Aviation accidents are caused by a chain of events and the chain here was a pilot with something to prove, poor design (cockpit hard to see out of) and-possibly-the other aircraft. If it were a great aircraft, the program would have survived that one incident. But the Concordski’s story is one of an airplane rushed to fly to “beat the West” and prove the superiority of the Soviet system. It was expensive to operate, deafeningly loud inside the cabin, the engine control systems were inferior, relatively short range compared to Concord, the wing design was inferior, it had an extremely high landing speed (early versions even had a landing chute) and ultimately flew only 55 passenger flights (out of 102 scheduled) before a slew of maintenance cancellations and incidents relegated the type to flying cargo. Even the Concord itself was only a limited success and it was a thoroughly more refined design. So, no, I don’t believe the conspiracy theories surrounding the Paris air show crash or the “Evil West” conspiring to bring down the People’s Victory. Sorry.
Well, actually the bomb bay is far more impressive than the gear...did you build that part? Also, I figured out that the “Boom 50” is far larger than the real thing, so I actually scaled the bomb to the correct size of the Mk 82, as well as the Mk 84. The unrealistic part of that is that both my pseudo Mk 82 and Mk 84 is that the “Boom” is the same size regardless of of the scaling.
@Kevinairlines not sure about the scaling issue, I don’t generally scale my aircraft because it throws off the performance compared to the size and weight. This one flies nicely...I can’t quite figure out the function of the rotating parts in the tail boom, though.
Audacious and daring...two thumbs up 😃👍👍
+1