@greasytortle you still kept the acceleration from being ludicrous, so...nice! I have to multiply engine power on my builds, usually at least 2x power, but still low-level speed tends to be low, while airspeed at higher altitudes tend to be high. Oh well, that’s the price of replica builds.
Classic jet, interesting build. I have 500 or so hours in the T-38, so I particularly like the F-5...much more thrusties made the airframe that much better!
Nice, especially at only 253 parts...accelerates a little fast, but that’s a byproduct for f overcoming SP drag physics. Can tell lots of effort went down to this one
There’s an XML setting you can access through the file or with Overload. It’s called “disableCollisions” and it should be set to “True”. Which platform are you on?
@F104Deathtrap true, you can't drop out of a nose door! Some planes, like the C-5 have both, adding to their flexibility when handling, or dropping, cargo. The Globemaster, shown above, C-124, I think it was designated, only had the nose doors, but could also drop troops out of the side doors, but certainly not larger items. You're probably correct in your thought it was probably designed that way for aerodynamic reasons, etc.
@F104Deathtrap it’s because you’re not limited by the length of the cargo. When trying to load though a side door, the cargo has to be able to fit around the “corner” of the door and the fuselage. Kind of like trying to fit a new bed into your bedroom when your bedroom
door opens onto a hallway. Nothing to do with CG
Very nice, you nailed the shape perfectly! Both the rotation/takeoff speed as well as the top speed want to make me yell “ludicrous speed!!!” I’d really like to see a 3.0 version of this as @EternalDarkness suggests, tame some of the negative flying qualities, also with red stars and without the 2000 lbs of ballast, she flies fine without it.
@greasytortle I credit @vonhubert for showing me the basic idea, I simplified it a little by using two stacked rotators, instead of two hinges. The trick is to set one rotator to floppy for part of the retraction, the other covers the necessary rotation to close the doors, plus the floppy rotator’s arc. The shock is there to keep the doors open by pushing for the first part of the rotation until the gear gets partially retracted. The hard part of building this setup is all the fine adjustments necessary to get it to fit together the right way, not to mention trying to get that shock to clip on both ends simultaneously!
@greasytortle well if it isn’t big enough, it’s probably almost big enough anyway...it’s certainly not ridiculously small. Checkout my B-57 for a variation on the dorsal intake and wing spoilers.
I may disagree with a single engined airliner, but this works! Nice details with the spoilers (wing surfaces on rotators will give more roll authority than the spoilers you use). Overall, flies nice, doesn’t have ridiculous speed or maneuverability, nice build!
@Megaplanesinc yes, one of my earlier creations, the is CoM too close to the CoL...it glides well enough for what it is because of this, but is unstable and will stall and auto-rotate (spin) if it gets out of hand.
Nice, I like your execution of the classic Stringbag! I once read a great account of the Swordfish squadron that went into action against the Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and Prinz Eugen during the Channel Dash (unfortunately cannot remember the name of the book). Anyway, have loved the Swordfish ever since.
Yeah...right (insert eye roll here). This is so clever, it’s stupid. Besides the fact I can punch all sorts of holes in this theory (commercial aircraft are restricted to 250 KIAS below 10,000’, that airplane is perhaps only 1 to 2 miles away from the camera man, etc.), keeping a secret like this makes absolutely no sense. Sure, distrust government, institutions, etc., but why in the world would Airbus hide some advanced propulsion tech? If they had something like this and wanted to keep it a secret, they certainly wouldn’t be selling it to Delta Airlines and it’s thousands of employees and millions of passengers. And if something so revolutionary as this was developed, they’d be selling it to everyone and crush Boeing out of the aerospace market. I’m amazed at conspiracy theorists all the time, from flat earthers to moon landing hoaxers to 9/11 deniers, all a products of watching too much of the X-Files (which I love to watch myself 😃👍)!
@forrealsimplePlanes here you go, my first version of the Eagle. For your high speed rotation issue on takeoff, move your rear landing gear forward to the scale location until your F-15 is almost, but not quite, tipping onto its tail...that should enable your jet to rotate and fly at a more realistic speed. Also, you can “stack” two rotators on top of each other, one set for pitch, the other for trim, that way preserving your model’s realism. I’ve done this on several of my more recent builds, my F-4E being a good example of this.
Nice first build, very similar to my very first featured plane...also an Eagle...sure, there are various techniques and trips you could use to address your build’s issues, you will definitely become a great builder with time, keep it up!
OK, this is incredible, pretty much the best, most complete airliner on the site. However, a couple of issues nag at me and I would like to ask you about them...I'd like to ask you by tagging you on an unlisted post...would you like the feedback...?
Nice. I’m part way through an Su-11 myself, but going is slow. Have you ever considered using rotators to move the entire stab? You can even “stack” rotators on top of one another, one for pitch control, the other for trim. I do it a lot on my builds.
So, this challenge intrigues me...unfortunately I don’t have the extra time to enter and present a worthy build. I do have one input, however. Considering your scoring of performance characteristics, I agree “does it fly like a trainer” is subjective and totally up to you. My input, having nearly 1000 hrs in the mighty T-37B Tweet and over 500 hrs in the T-38, just because a plane is a trainer doesn’t mean it’s not maneuverable. The ‘38 had a max roll rate in excess of 720 degrees per second, more than the F-16 and enough to earn an operational restriction prohibiting continuous aileron rolls. The Tweet could turn inside just about any airplane due to its thick wing, low speed and ability to pull more than 4 Gs. So, I would advise (unsolicited, of course) not to grade too harshly against a maneuverable entry (provided it’s not unrealistically so), but weigh more towards whether it’s “easy to fly, forgiving and absent adverse handling characteristics”. But, it is your challenge, just offering some input and sorry I can’t enter.
Yeah, just let them know that you’re building an F-14B or F-14D Super Tomcat. The original engines (TF30s) were replaced with GE built F110 turbofans with the revised nozzles, like your build has.
@Pieceofpi314 well, it couldn’t have been that complex, otherwise it would not have been able to fly that fast. So, if I were you I would rebuild it and post it!
Yes. Under what conditions did you set your record (i.e., altitude, dive/level flight, etc.?). Does it have landing gear? Can it take off and land, are you going to post it?
@greasytortle you still kept the acceleration from being ludicrous, so...nice! I have to multiply engine power on my builds, usually at least 2x power, but still low-level speed tends to be low, while airspeed at higher altitudes tend to be high. Oh well, that’s the price of replica builds.
+1Classic jet, interesting build. I have 500 or so hours in the T-38, so I particularly like the F-5...much more thrusties made the airframe that much better!
Nice, especially at only 253 parts...accelerates a little fast, but that’s a byproduct for f overcoming SP drag physics. Can tell lots of effort went down to this one
+1Does it still work as an intake? My experience is that intakes need to be mounted on fuselage blocks, otherwise they won’t take in any air.
@Gestour, of course... I have my latest build just where I want it performance-wise, but the addition of markings is going to mess that up...
Looks fun, sure wish I knew how to do multiplayer...
There’s an XML setting you can access through the file or with Overload. It’s called “disableCollisions” and it should be set to “True”. Which platform are you on?
@Sunnyskies it worked! Thanks.
@Sunnyskies where would I write it in? Can I do it in Overload under the Part menu?
@F104Deathtrap absolutely!
+1@F104Deathtrap true, you can't drop out of a nose door! Some planes, like the C-5 have both, adding to their flexibility when handling, or dropping, cargo. The Globemaster, shown above, C-124, I think it was designated, only had the nose doors, but could also drop troops out of the side doors, but certainly not larger items. You're probably correct in your thought it was probably designed that way for aerodynamic reasons, etc.
+1@F104Deathtrap it’s because you’re not limited by the length of the cargo. When trying to load though a side door, the cargo has to be able to fit around the “corner” of the door and the fuselage. Kind of like trying to fit a new bed into your bedroom when your bedroom
door opens onto a hallway. Nothing to do with CG
Very nice, you nailed the shape perfectly! Both the rotation/takeoff speed as well as the top speed want to make me yell “ludicrous speed!!!” I’d really like to see a 3.0 version of this as @EternalDarkness suggests, tame some of the negative flying qualities, also with red stars and without the 2000 lbs of ballast, she flies fine without it.
+1@greasytortle I credit @vonhubert for showing me the basic idea, I simplified it a little by using two stacked rotators, instead of two hinges. The trick is to set one rotator to floppy for part of the retraction, the other covers the necessary rotation to close the doors, plus the floppy rotator’s arc. The shock is there to keep the doors open by pushing for the first part of the rotation until the gear gets partially retracted. The hard part of building this setup is all the fine adjustments necessary to get it to fit together the right way, not to mention trying to get that shock to clip on both ends simultaneously!
@greasytortle well if it isn’t big enough, it’s probably almost big enough anyway...it’s certainly not ridiculously small. Checkout my B-57 for a variation on the dorsal intake and wing spoilers.
@greasytortle yeah, I will admit, it does look good
I may disagree with a single engined airliner, but this works! Nice details with the spoilers (wing surfaces on rotators will give more roll authority than the spoilers you use). Overall, flies nice, doesn’t have ridiculous speed or maneuverability, nice build!
How’d you get the nice long afterburner plume?
Noice! Get them MiGs!
+1Nice, I like it 😃👍
@Megaplanesinc yes, one of my earlier creations, the is CoM too close to the CoL...it glides well enough for what it is because of this, but is unstable and will stall and auto-rotate (spin) if it gets out of hand.
By the way, how did you create and post the GIFs into your description?
Deserves an upvote and spotlight if only for the epic number of parts!
+1Nice, I like your execution of the classic Stringbag! I once read a great account of the Swordfish squadron that went into action against the Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and Prinz Eugen during the Channel Dash (unfortunately cannot remember the name of the book). Anyway, have loved the Swordfish ever since.
Finally, a realistic jet...I had just downloaded some hyperactive fictional jet build and this is a welcome departure from that mold. Nice work!
Have you made a HAL Marut yet? I bet a good rendition of that airplane might get you some good points.
+1Meh, don’t worry about it...you have 47,000+ points, you’re a success in Simple Planes by any measure!
+1YES!!! Then we could build accurate SR-71 and F-22s!
+2Yeah...right (insert eye roll here). This is so clever, it’s stupid. Besides the fact I can punch all sorts of holes in this theory (commercial aircraft are restricted to 250 KIAS below 10,000’, that airplane is perhaps only 1 to 2 miles away from the camera man, etc.), keeping a secret like this makes absolutely no sense. Sure, distrust government, institutions, etc., but why in the world would Airbus hide some advanced propulsion tech? If they had something like this and wanted to keep it a secret, they certainly wouldn’t be selling it to Delta Airlines and it’s thousands of employees and millions of passengers. And if something so revolutionary as this was developed, they’d be selling it to everyone and crush Boeing out of the aerospace market. I’m amazed at conspiracy theorists all the time, from flat earthers to moon landing hoaxers to 9/11 deniers, all a products of watching too much of the X-Files (which I love to watch myself 😃👍)!
+7Cool! By the way, how did you import the sandbox screenshots into your post?
Cool...how did you use screenshots in your posting, vice the default views?
Nice camo.
@forrealsimplePlanes here you go, my first version of the Eagle. For your high speed rotation issue on takeoff, move your rear landing gear forward to the scale location until your F-15 is almost, but not quite, tipping onto its tail...that should enable your jet to rotate and fly at a more realistic speed. Also, you can “stack” two rotators on top of each other, one set for pitch, the other for trim, that way preserving your model’s realism. I’ve done this on several of my more recent builds, my F-4E being a good example of this.
Nice first build, very similar to my very first featured plane...also an Eagle...sure, there are various techniques and trips you could use to address your build’s issues, you will definitely become a great builder with time, keep it up!
Beautiful work here, I always liked the Badger, in spite of its Russki origin!
@Alpha029 thanks! I’ve always liked the looks of the Phantom myself.
OK, this is incredible, pretty much the best, most complete airliner on the site. However, a couple of issues nag at me and I would like to ask you about them...I'd like to ask you by tagging you on an unlisted post...would you like the feedback...?
@Mustang51 sure, though I don’t anticipate it will be done anytime soon. I might be able to tag you an the build progress, though.
+1Nice. I’m part way through an Su-11 myself, but going is slow. Have you ever considered using rotators to move the entire stab? You can even “stack” rotators on top of one another, one for pitch control, the other for trim. I do it a lot on my builds.
So, this challenge intrigues me...unfortunately I don’t have the extra time to enter and present a worthy build. I do have one input, however. Considering your scoring of performance characteristics, I agree “does it fly like a trainer” is subjective and totally up to you. My input, having nearly 1000 hrs in the mighty T-37B Tweet and over 500 hrs in the T-38, just because a plane is a trainer doesn’t mean it’s not maneuverable. The ‘38 had a max roll rate in excess of 720 degrees per second, more than the F-16 and enough to earn an operational restriction prohibiting continuous aileron rolls. The Tweet could turn inside just about any airplane due to its thick wing, low speed and ability to pull more than 4 Gs. So, I would advise (unsolicited, of course) not to grade too harshly against a maneuverable entry (provided it’s not unrealistically so), but weigh more towards whether it’s “easy to fly, forgiving and absent adverse handling characteristics”. But, it is your challenge, just offering some input and sorry I can’t enter.
+3Wow, I can't even believe this thing actually flies, the Gee Bee inspiration was a strange enough shape, but this takes the cake!
Yeah, just let them know that you’re building an F-14B or F-14D Super Tomcat. The original engines (TF30s) were replaced with GE built F110 turbofans with the revised nozzles, like your build has.
@Sauce don’t know if you saw this one or not, sequenced gear doors, might be a help on your F-14...but you probably already figured that out...
Which do you like better, a peregrine falcon or a stork? That’s why.
Beautiful work, flies very nicely and looks great!
@Pieceofpi314 well, it couldn’t have been that complex, otherwise it would not have been able to fly that fast. So, if I were you I would rebuild it and post it!
Yes. Under what conditions did you set your record (i.e., altitude, dive/level flight, etc.?). Does it have landing gear? Can it take off and land, are you going to post it?
Uh...no. Here’s how I would rate it: DIF, IF, EXTD
@DJ123 yes, I’ve done it, but it has to be a fairly large, slow-turning target...which is exactly what a Bear bomber would be, so it works.
+1@BogdanX dang. You’ve crushed my hopes and dreams...