You figured something out here...nice. By the way, what's the syntax to use the unguided rockets in air-to-air mode? I've tried to figure it out in Overload and via the XML file, but haven't been able to crack the code...is it even possible?
@WalrusAircraft agreed, communism was a huge influencer. Ever read Yuri Belenko's book, Mig Pilot? Very illuminating as to the condition of the Soviet Union, which has largely carried over to Russia. From an airman's perspective, I think that the poor conditions of Soviet and Russian airfields are more a result of the fact they don't have the money to keep up airfields the way that the U.S. or Europe, or even China does, so they just accept it, design their aircraft accordingly and accept the results (poorer safety record, aircraft designed to swap out whole aircraft during combat rather than components to keep individual jets flying). We in the West are sometimes in awe of what we perceive is a conscious philosophy where we think Boris is intentionally accepting these conditions because it mimics what would happen in combat. If you look at the open source pictures of Syrian combat ops, you'll see that it looks amazingly like deployed USAF combat ops...same tan uniforms, cleared ramps, (some) precision weapons. The Gulf Was was a huge shock to the former Soviet Union and client states and now Russia seems to be emulating the successful model. Of course, the irony is that ops at damaged airfields might be a reality if things don't go well for our side. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, China is worshipping the West right now...look at their ships! They look like carbon copies of the current generation of western naval vessels. The Chinese air forces (PLAAF and PLNAF) are flying more because they perceive much of the success is a result of western air forces developing independent, aggressive and well-trained pilots; they seem to be abandoning, to a large extent, the old Soviet model.
PAST is a good acronym to remember this...[Gyroscopic] Precession, Asymmetric Thrust [P-Factor], Spiraling Slipstream and Torque...only occurs in prop aircraft. Real aircraft experience this and it's most pronounced at high power settings and low airspeeds due to high thrust aggravating all of those PAST factors and a low airspeed making the flight controls less effective...at the worst possible time, low and slow. That's why pilots of powerful single-engine prop aircraft, such as most WWII fighters, add a bootful of rudder when applying power, especially on takeoff. When the aircraft are flying faster, the empennage and a little rudder trim take care of trimming out the aircraft to stay straight (@Tully201). Unfortunately, in SP, this is NOT what causes the rolling we've all experienced. It's caused by this; there are ways of fixing this, usually by replacing the offending parts on the aircraft and avoiding causing the problem in the first place (@AudioDud3).
@WalrusAircraft wow, that's a broad question. Sure, there are cultural influences, but I would say Soviet vs. American designs were influenced more by the realities of the Cold War than strictly cultural differences. What's an interesting example is the F-86 vs. the MiG-15...both are remarkably similar, though developed independently and with a lot of help from German wartime research. As you ask about European vs American designs, well Europeans have eschewed stealth...too expensive tempered by fact that Europeans hope there will be no more highly contested conflicts. Russia continues to pour efforts into two Cold War holdovers, the Flanker and Fulcrum, though some effort has been spent on the Sukhoi T-50/PAK-FA. IMHO, though, the T-50 is no match for the F-22, most of its vaunted capes are propaganda. Culturally, what lets me sleep well at night is American inventiveness--other nations are good, but there's just something special about how the US innovates, dreams and imagines. The F-22 (and F-35) have capabilities you couldn't imagine--I best describe them as Black Magic-- not because the fly faster or higher or pull more Gs, but for the other things such as the fact any of the F-22's computers perform multiple functions and can take over for the other computers or the fact the 35's pilot can look through the jet (synthetic vision).
I'm especially miffed by this right now as I saw a post which looked really similar to one of my posts from a year ago...similar techniques, build styles, even similar compromises and work arounds. There were some changes, but clearly and eerily similar. However, no mention of my original post and the plane wasn't posted as a successor. I even called out the poster and all I got was an "LOL"! Not right!
Agreed; also to add to your point, successor posts give points to the original creator, so successors are usually welcomed. It's especially nice if the successor creator mentions the original creator in the description...👍. However, circumventing (and there are ways of doing this) the successor system and passing off a creation as your own is, in any book, plagiarism.
This one is beautiful, as always. Also, I downloaded this one as I was soooo frustrated with some custom gear issues I was having and...literally...one look at something you did with your landing gear gave me a flash of inspiration and now my landing gear woes are solved! Thanks!
@SpartanAirplanes, why thanks! Yeah, I think it's pretty fun to fly, I like trying to spot land or simulating a mission to resupply one of the convoy's destroyers.
Well, the good news is that it looks survivable (upright, cabin appears intact), it is on fire, but probably caused from slamming into the median strip.
Just be careful when placing them next to the moving parts (leading edge flaps), as there's a tendency for the attach points on the new part to also attach to the moving part attach points. If that happens, it'll freeze up the LE flaps and you'll have to disassemble then reassemble everything to get it to work again. This is a beauty, I like it!
@Stellarlabs the F-104 was designed by Clarence Kelly Johnson (American), built by Lockheed (American company) and flow by the USAF (American air force)...but in fairly limited numbers So, he's correct. The Luftwaffe (German air force), though, was THE major user of the Starfighter, so depicting it in German colors is correct, as well.
Still needs the Sidewinders or Slammers on the wingtip rails, or at least just the rails! Other than that, I think it looks great...ok, so the colors are not stock F-16, but I think it looks really cool!
This thing is only 152 parts, so it's still mobile-friendly...why don't you slap some Soviet red stars on this? It would be fairly easy to do and probably look even better!
@GhostHTX thanks! This one was one of my favorites and it was featured--I think it was the striped tail, which really stands out. If I were to do it today, I would make it larger, so that it was 1:1 and I would XML mod (or use modded parts) for the landing gear rotators so that I could operate the gear through the landing gear switch. Plus, I would use intake pieces for the exhaust stacks. I've considered converting it to a Spooky, but you beat me to it, nice!
@Hayhayjam664, sure, but the Waco CG-4 did not airdrop anything by parachute--you need to lift the nose to unload the cargo! The whole CONOPs for the combat gliders was that you did not drop by parachute, instead landing in remote areas, but keeping all the troops in the back (and the pilots, who became infantry upon landing) in one unit instead of spread all over the countryside. So it wouldn't be in keeping with the real thing, though, I will admit, it is always cool to airdrop things out of airplanes in SP.
Alternatively, you could also do it with traditional XML modding, but that is highly tedious and easy to miss individual pieces and parts. Something to remember, though, there are still attributes you cannot access with Overload--the ones I know are custom colors and reflectivity which I still go through the XML file to mod. But, 99% of what I mod, I just use Overload. As for Fine Tuner, I primarily use that for angling individual parts or groups of parts.
Get Overload--if you're on iOS, sorry, you can't add mods to your iPhone. Once you've installed Overload (I also highly recommend Fine Tuner--you can find both mods under the "Mods" section).
Click on the first part of your custom landing gear--strut, rotator, wheel, whatever. It will highlight yellow.
Click on the Overload icon at the bottom of the screen.
At the top of the dialogue box, go to the "Part" dropdown submenu.
Next to "No Collisions", you should see "False". Delete "False" and type in "True".
Repeat for every landing gear part.
Test your landing gear--if it "glitches", gets stuck, vibrates or flutters, there's probably a part which still has No Collisions set to False.
You figured something out here...nice. By the way, what's the syntax to use the unguided rockets in air-to-air mode? I've tried to figure it out in Overload and via the XML file, but haven't been able to crack the code...is it even possible?
By the way, this build is under-rated! It should be well over 100 upvotes by now!
+1@WalrusAircraft agreed, communism was a huge influencer. Ever read Yuri Belenko's book, Mig Pilot? Very illuminating as to the condition of the Soviet Union, which has largely carried over to Russia. From an airman's perspective, I think that the poor conditions of Soviet and Russian airfields are more a result of the fact they don't have the money to keep up airfields the way that the U.S. or Europe, or even China does, so they just accept it, design their aircraft accordingly and accept the results (poorer safety record, aircraft designed to swap out whole aircraft during combat rather than components to keep individual jets flying). We in the West are sometimes in awe of what we perceive is a conscious philosophy where we think Boris is intentionally accepting these conditions because it mimics what would happen in combat. If you look at the open source pictures of Syrian combat ops, you'll see that it looks amazingly like deployed USAF combat ops...same tan uniforms, cleared ramps, (some) precision weapons. The Gulf Was was a huge shock to the former Soviet Union and client states and now Russia seems to be emulating the successful model. Of course, the irony is that ops at damaged airfields might be a reality if things don't go well for our side. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, China is worshipping the West right now...look at their ships! They look like carbon copies of the current generation of western naval vessels. The Chinese air forces (PLAAF and PLNAF) are flying more because they perceive much of the success is a result of western air forces developing independent, aggressive and well-trained pilots; they seem to be abandoning, to a large extent, the old Soviet model.
So...no B-47s or B-52s...?
PAST is a good acronym to remember this...[Gyroscopic] Precession, Asymmetric Thrust [P-Factor], Spiraling Slipstream and Torque...only occurs in prop aircraft. Real aircraft experience this and it's most pronounced at high power settings and low airspeeds due to high thrust aggravating all of those PAST factors and a low airspeed making the flight controls less effective...at the worst possible time, low and slow. That's why pilots of powerful single-engine prop aircraft, such as most WWII fighters, add a bootful of rudder when applying power, especially on takeoff. When the aircraft are flying faster, the empennage and a little rudder trim take care of trimming out the aircraft to stay straight (@Tully201). Unfortunately, in SP, this is NOT what causes the rolling we've all experienced. It's caused by this; there are ways of fixing this, usually by replacing the offending parts on the aircraft and avoiding causing the problem in the first place (@AudioDud3).
And those aren't blueprints you're using--no one on this site is using BPs--they're using "3-views", I use them as well.
@MasterLobster I really think red stars would work, would you like me to try?
Really very nice!
Needs more sweep on the wing, plus slap some red stars on this baby!!!
Nice!
@WalrusAircraft wow, that's a broad question. Sure, there are cultural influences, but I would say Soviet vs. American designs were influenced more by the realities of the Cold War than strictly cultural differences. What's an interesting example is the F-86 vs. the MiG-15...both are remarkably similar, though developed independently and with a lot of help from German wartime research. As you ask about European vs American designs, well Europeans have eschewed stealth...too expensive tempered by fact that Europeans hope there will be no more highly contested conflicts. Russia continues to pour efforts into two Cold War holdovers, the Flanker and Fulcrum, though some effort has been spent on the Sukhoi T-50/PAK-FA. IMHO, though, the T-50 is no match for the F-22, most of its vaunted capes are propaganda. Culturally, what lets me sleep well at night is American inventiveness--other nations are good, but there's just something special about how the US innovates, dreams and imagines. The F-22 (and F-35) have capabilities you couldn't imagine--I best describe them as Black Magic-- not because the fly faster or higher or pull more Gs, but for the other things such as the fact any of the F-22's computers perform multiple functions and can take over for the other computers or the fact the 35's pilot can look through the jet (synthetic vision).
@WalrusAircraft sure, a little. What questions do you have?
@WalrusAircraft no need, all fixed, I'll look out for the Backfire when you post it, thanks.
@WalrusAircraft yes, I am in the Air Force.
Beautiful.
I'm especially miffed by this right now as I saw a post which looked really similar to one of my posts from a year ago...similar techniques, build styles, even similar compromises and work arounds. There were some changes, but clearly and eerily similar. However, no mention of my original post and the plane wasn't posted as a successor. I even called out the poster and all I got was an "LOL"! Not right!
Agreed; also to add to your point, successor posts give points to the original creator, so successors are usually welcomed. It's especially nice if the successor creator mentions the original creator in the description...👍. However, circumventing (and there are ways of doing this) the successor system and passing off a creation as your own is, in any book, plagiarism.
This one is beautiful, as always. Also, I downloaded this one as I was soooo frustrated with some custom gear issues I was having and...literally...one look at something you did with your landing gear gave me a flash of inspiration and now my landing gear woes are solved! Thanks!
Very easy to fly, stable and intriguing! Not sure I would have gone with the unlimited fuel, though.
Nice camo.
@DERPYGRIEFER yeah, not sure how I missed the flap!
@DERPYGRIEFER I already working on an enlarged and armed version of this already, will tag you prior to release to see if you like it.
Nice Gustav, flies well, fights well, I especially like the shape and the guns.
@aguy sure, reupload what you can...but pay attention to your mom this time and don't make her force you to delete your account!
@aguy you were LuKorp before...what happened?
@aguy you have a new account?
Whoa.
@SpartanAirplanes, why thanks! Yeah, I think it's pretty fun to fly, I like trying to spot land or simulating a mission to resupply one of the convoy's destroyers.
Hey, front page, nice!
Some thoughtful details here, nice!
@SimpleFlow danke!
Seems to be more of an A-7F than an A-7E, but cool build, really looks like a Corsair!
@BogdanX some nations/versions do use drogue chutes--I think Norway does, but they are the exception rather than the rule.
Well, the cockpit, which is the hardest part to get right, looks great. The wings, IMHO need a bit more sweep, at least 35 degrees or so.
Well, the good news is that it looks survivable (upright, cabin appears intact), it is on fire, but probably caused from slamming into the median strip.
Very nice!
@Pilotmario huh, you are correct!
What did you search on YouTube to find the tutorial? "red star SimplePlanes"?
Just be careful when placing them next to the moving parts (leading edge flaps), as there's a tendency for the attach points on the new part to also attach to the moving part attach points. If that happens, it'll freeze up the LE flaps and you'll have to disassemble then reassemble everything to get it to work again. This is a beauty, I like it!
@Stellarlabs the F-104 was designed by Clarence Kelly Johnson (American), built by Lockheed (American company) and flow by the USAF (American air force)...but in fairly limited numbers So, he's correct. The Luftwaffe (German air force), though, was THE major user of the Starfighter, so depicting it in German colors is correct, as well.
I look at this thing and I hear the strains of the Soviet National Anthem! Nice! Also, the stars are perfect...how did you build those?
Still needs the Sidewinders or Slammers on the wingtip rails, or at least just the rails! Other than that, I think it looks great...ok, so the colors are not stock F-16, but I think it looks really cool!
This thing is only 152 parts, so it's still mobile-friendly...why don't you slap some Soviet red stars on this? It would be fairly easy to do and probably look even better!
Yup, just refreshed, nice!
@GhostHTX thanks! This one was one of my favorites and it was featured--I think it was the striped tail, which really stands out. If I were to do it today, I would make it larger, so that it was 1:1 and I would XML mod (or use modded parts) for the landing gear rotators so that I could operate the gear through the landing gear switch. Plus, I would use intake pieces for the exhaust stacks. I've considered converting it to a Spooky, but you beat me to it, nice!
Nice, I've always liked these bomber aircraft from the 20s and 30s! You really should write a description, though.
@Hayhayjam664, sure, but the Waco CG-4 did not airdrop anything by parachute--you need to lift the nose to unload the cargo! The whole CONOPs for the combat gliders was that you did not drop by parachute, instead landing in remote areas, but keeping all the troops in the back (and the pilots, who became infantry upon landing) in one unit instead of spread all over the countryside. So it wouldn't be in keeping with the real thing, though, I will admit, it is always cool to airdrop things out of airplanes in SP.
Wow, very nice, more detailed than my Gooney Bird, which I also built on my iPhone. As always, am very impressed at what you can do on your iPhone.
Alternatively, you could also do it with traditional XML modding, but that is highly tedious and easy to miss individual pieces and parts. Something to remember, though, there are still attributes you cannot access with Overload--the ones I know are custom colors and reflectivity which I still go through the XML file to mod. But, 99% of what I mod, I just use Overload. As for Fine Tuner, I primarily use that for angling individual parts or groups of parts.