@Alex9000 ok, understood. You do realize that you could post this as an unlisted, then release it to the general audience when it’s ready? This really is a very good build, so wouldn’t want you to lose upvotes or notice by posting stuff that’s not 100% complete.
Way, way better than I initially thought from the two word description and standard screenshots. Roll is nice and snappy, as it ought to be, at least for the earlier Mes (not sure if the Gustav had gotten really heavy in roll yet). Turning seems just right (tested this on the Dev Console and 310 mph / 500 kph yielded around 7.5 Gs). Speeds are close, around 310 mph / 500 kph at SL, 400 mph / 650 kph at 30,000’. Stall is around 80 mph / 130 kph (indicated), which is also close. The acceleration / energy retention may be higher than IRL, but it does slow down in turns, which is very good and it doesn’t accelerate flying straight up, very nice. It is around 35-30% lighter than it should be, but it’s not ridiculously light, though that makes the wing loading is a little light as well and gives it better maneuverability. But SP counts the tail surfaces in wing area, so you’re also fairly close. The construction is pretty good, some interesting techniques for the German cross insignia on the fuse, as well as getting the canopy and fuselage area correct—very nice work. I also like the details, which you seem to have an eye for, such as the fact the split flaps extend slightly different amounts, as IRL. The landing reflects RL problems with that closely spaced LG...it suddenly becomes a touchy, tricky beast as soon as you touchdown, just as IRL. Honestly, it’s a great job at modeling, if it had a little better/more complete description (even without going overboard), it would get at least 25 upvotes, IMHO.
Nice, relatively simple build of a little known rocket fighter prototype with the best part being that you used rockets to power it, so it’s really fun. The pitch rate is adequate and not ridiculously fast, though it could use more pitch and trim authority at lower speeds, as well as for the pattern and landing. It really should roll a lot faster, though, and it should fly a little faster...I’d guesstimate a rocket fighter like this should fly at least 500 KTAS (the Komet was at least that fast), especially down low, and the fastest I saw with this one was around 450 KTAS. Plus, the JATO rocket doesn’t add much thrust, if any...but it’s impressively cool looking with that big flame and lots more smoke! But it’s not too far off and it’s better than making it a 1,000 knot plane. It glides way faster than I would have expected for something with 14 lbs/ft2 of wing loading. But it works if you start out at 10,000’ high key above the runway midpoint and fly 170 KIAS and 20 degrees nose low during the 360 to landing. You do have to carefully time the round out and flare to landing, but it lands quite nicely. The last disappointment was the armament... many builders make the same mistake of using cannons as air to air armament, but the cannons really can’t hit an aerial target unless they’re XML modded. Yours are not here and it’s impossible to hit an aerial target, which is why I stick to using the original wing guns for my builds. Nice job overall.
I got this one up to 3,243 KTAS, around 400 knots faster than you managed. But I had to zoom down from 200,000’ to do it. Very wobbly above 150,000’, but always remained stable enough, though I thought I was going to pull a Neil Armstrong and bounce off the upper atmosphere because the controls were fairly ineffective at that altitude...super fun ride, though!
@JaeBeansS well, glad you like it. There are some structural techniques that this build’s relative simplicity make easy to see. But I wouldn’t use this to create a flight model, it uses brute power to overcome the unrealistically high drag from the built up wings, instead of using drag reduction, as it should be done. As a result, it accelerates too quickly, plus it’s not as fast as the RL jet at low altitudes. It also probably has too much turn capability. Fixing the flight model wouldn’t take too much, though, it isn’t as hard as it seems to make a “good enough” flight model in SP.
This plane doesn’t have a pitching up problem at low altitude, that’s what trim is for...but, if you want to make the trim more neutral, you could add a half a degree of leading edge up angle on the horizontal stab.
What do you mean by a 1:1 flight model? We can discuss how SP is realistic (three NACA wing profiles with the accurate lift and drag curves, CoG and CoL, decreasing drag and air density with altitude, fuel consumption when flying as a RL plane would, etc.) and how it’s not as accurate as it could be (no supersonic effects, builders tend to cover wings which throws off drag effects, there’s no actual “air” in SP, so even parts which would be hidden from airflow IRL produce drag). But there are workarounds for most of these things, it is possible to make a “good” or even an “excellent” flight model, but you’ll never make a 100% accurate or a 1:1 flight model in SP...there are simply too many variables between RL and a simulation. Heck, even RL full motion flight simulators used in pilot training aren’t 100% accurate, but they are close enough to fly fairly accurately.
Two words: FLIGHT MODEL. In order to capture the Phantom’s flight characteristics you need to ensure very high speeds at low level (nearly Mach 1.2 at sea level), but no faster than Mach 2.23 at altitude (probably will take an engine program to boost power at high IAS, “ram air effect” and reduce power at low air density/altitude). It needs to be able of pulling at least 7.33+ G instantaneously...but more because IRL pilots use a G meter and fly to the limits of the aircraft but almost always have a performance reserve which allows a pilot pull harder and overstress the airframe. The build should bleed a good amount of airspeed/altitude/energy in hard turns, as it would IRL. It should also slow down when the throttles are pulled back, hidden SBs may be required, depending on how many drag points you have. Wing area should be approximately the same size as RL to approximate wing loading and be sure to use the SYMMETRIC AIRFOIL...I have no idea why builders put Cessna wings on high performance jets which have symmetric airfoils IRL. One thing SP does model is the performance characteristics of cambered vs. semi-symmetric vs. symmetric airfoils, so why not use them? And lastly, the Phantom didn’t fly like an airliner...so don’t make it fly like one. It may not have the turn circle of a MiG-21, but it was a fighter and was fairly good when light, so model appropriately...here’s an inspiration if you need one!
This isn’t bad, I think you did the right thing by prioritizing the rocket propulsion, even if the propulsion system is not throttleable here, as it was IRL. But any Komet build, being a representation of the first and only rocket-powered fighter, needs to use a rocket motor. I would suggest the next time to ditch the cannon armament for the wing guns as in SP there is no way to hit another aircraft with the cannons...it’s a limitation with the game, but for many reasons they just don’t work air to air and the Komet never was employed as an air to ground platform, strictly as an anti-bomber interceptor. So, I would use the wing gun instead of the in game cannons. You could also reduce the weight of the aircraft (which was 6,000+ lbs on takeoff) and drag points (you have 3,800+ pts currently) on the build and that might help you make a more accurate flight model. I’d also give it more nose up authority for low speed handling as the B model of the Komet didn’t land much faster than 130 mph, otherwise it would float in ground effect right out of the landing zone.
I really like this. Nice flight model, seems realistic enough to me...looks good overall, I’m sure the camo was tricky as I can see a couple of little compromises you made for it, but it looks like the RL jet.
Very well done and super fun to fly. Feels very close to a RL aircraft, seriously. The takeoff and landing characteristics are exceptional...tricky if you over control it, but docile if you do it right. The roll rate and turn rate are great, flight model is very well done here. Nice work!
Nice work here. Yes, using the default sideways traction settings of 90% on the main LG makes it nearly impossible to control on takeoff. However the fix is simple: Just reduce the sideways traction on the main wheels to 50% and it’s much more controllable. You can also experiment with raising the sideways traction on the tailwheel, which may also help, but the fix is simple.
So, I’m on iOS and have a question: How does the radar display work? I have the air to air target locked (flashing red) and dead ahead of me, but nothing on the radar display? Does this require an AG activation?
@edensk I think you’re getting bogged down in the details. I do not disagree that this build’s AoA limits are not as high as the RL jet’s. However, high performance jets are programmed to AoA, as in to not allow the pilots to exceed those limits. But pilots of high performance aircraft such as the F-16 fly as much by feel in those phases of flight...buffet (something this build actually replicates, but which you don’t mention), nose track and G loading...even wind noise...are much more obvious indicators of aircraft maneuvering performance and are actually replicated pretty well here, far better than even my builds. Those subtle cues that are sensed automatically are why an experienced with 2,000 hrs in type knows more than a newbie wingman. You may have watched a bunch of videos and played DCS, but as a retired USAF pilots who has flown more than 4,000 hrs total, including more than 500 of those hours in what the Brits call “fast jets”, I think this flight model is pretty good given SP’s limitations. And just to be sure, as I didn’t fly F-16s myself, I looked it up: Read this AFM I found on the FAS website (these guys have a little of everything): F-16 Combat Aircraft Fundamentals and you’ll see how G loading and not an AoA number is a pilot’s main reference to maximizing turn performance in the Viper. We can further discuss it if you would like.
Well, this is a superior build. There are all too many Vipers on site and I thought this was going to be just another typical F-16 build. Build quality and flight model are both great. Cockpit work is breathtaking. I’m going to have to take it apart and figure out some of the really cool things you did here. It’s anything but typical, it’s truly excellent. Well done.
Well, I have to commend the build itself. Closest build on site to the RL jet; I myself have never tried to build one of these because of the shape, which is difficult to replicate in SP. you’ve done a good job there, surely. I wish it did have the drop tanks, though, as I think that would add to the F-80’s beautiful aesthetic. Flight performance...well, it is simple to takeoff, fly and land, no real vices. The acceleration, like the RL jet, is slow, which was a common issue on early jets, so nice there. Top speed down low lacks a little, oh well, but it feels fairly light and tossable, which is good. And, oh boy, love the guns...can shred any target you hit! And you didn’t make the mistake of putting cannons...which never hit airborne targets...on this build. The 6x.50 Cals probably weren’t that effective, but I like it!
@asteroidbook345 try doubling up the nose wheel, then nudging them together so that they appear as one. Also, a weight imbalance between the two sides can also cause veering. My advice, of course, tends to assume a neat/symmetrical build technique, though the sideways traction thing fixes swerving all other things being done correctly.
Depends. As a RL pilot with more than 4,000 hours of actual flight time, I like the builder to relay all functionalities, including all AGs. Power settings and takeoff/landing/maneuvering speeds are good to know, as well as any built-in limitations and flying peculiarities. The player doesn’t have to read them if they don’t want to, so what’s the heartburn? I have fairly long descriptions as I attempt to imbue my builds with many of the RL flight characteristics and I like to make sure the player knows what they need to know to not get frustrated. As a result, complex builds tend to have long descriptions. Simple builds, on the other hand, might not have a long description. But there is a time and place for both long and short descriptions, as appropriate.
What @asteroidbook345 said. Making sure the nose wheel is centered and the main wheels are precisely opposite each other is important, but it really does come down to lowering the traction on the nose/front wheels. I do that for all my builds and it’s a life saver.
Beautiful work, looks good, handles well and performs realistically. Also, there aren’t that many of these on the site, which makes it that much more unique. I like it a lot.
Actually, not a half bad effort. Better thought out and executed than 90% of the builds out there. Plausible, not ridiculous. A couple of suggestions which might help take this build to the next level: Trim is reversed from RL, where trimming nose up is accomplished by clicking back on the little hat switch on top of the control stick. The way it’s set up here is really counterintuitive...pilots think “pull back, trees get smaller” and while the controls follow this logic, the trim controls do the opposite. Make it turn just a little better. I get you’re going for an interceptor that is optimized for straight line speed over turn capability...buuuut...it should be able to turn at least to 4 Gs or so. Added to this, if it had more pitch authority, it would be easier to land in a nose up attitude and at a slower speed. If you’re intentionally seeking a high landing speed, suggest you decrease the wing area instead of limiting the pitch, which is actually the reason RL aircraft have high landing speeds. Your build only has about 35 lb/sq ft wing loading, which is more in line with a WWII fighter than a 1960s circa jet, which often had 70-100 lb/sq ft wing loading. That would get you the effect you’re seeking here. But the other numbers are good and the realistic fuel quantity is great, though it could have just a little more thrust and speed brake power. But, overall, you’re on the right track and I like your build style...plus the insignia is fantastic!
Interesting...unfortunately, the green HUD/gunsight glass is really difficult to deal with. I actually deleted it and it made aiming much easier. Interesting build.
Interesting build, clearly inspired by the F-94. Suggestions on future builds, recommend you put hidden SBs which activate with the landing gear extension and flap extension. IRL, those two actions add a lot of drag and are used fairly regularly to control speed as you’re approaching the runway. One time, LA Center kept us high and fast coming in to land in Vegas and we were extending our flaps and landing gear as soon as we could (below the limiting airspeed) so that we could get the jet slowed and in parameters prior to getting on final approach. For your build, the SBs are quite effective in slowing down your build, but the LG and flaps would be used more as the jet approaches the runway prior to landing and, thus, ought to contribute to total drag as they’re extended.
@UltraLight or you could consider the elevator movement on the ground as the manipulation of the surface during the walk around, push the elevator trailing edge down, the trim tab should move up / remain neutral, push the elevator trailing edge up, the trim tab should move down / remain neutral.
I figured out the rear gunner problem, I think there’s an extra connection on either the gun or rotator. Will try and fix later. Also, recommend the following: Cut the power to 25-40% of what it’s at now. You’re currently using 1000 hp per engine, lower it to 250 - 400 hp. The German Mercedes G.IVa had around 260 hp and the US Liberty produced around 400 hp. When I use 25% power to fly, it accelerates realistically and flies at a period correct 90 knots (around 115 mph). Still a little bit fast, but very close to RL performance for this type of aircraft.
So, on my initial flight with this build, I have to say, it actually flies fairly well. It’s significantly faster than the RL aircraft of this era and type, but that can be fixed. The trim controls are reversed from what they would be IRL, you might want to look at changing that. I also noticed that something flies off your build up if you push over into negative Gs. I’ll keep looking at this and figure out the gunner situation, but I won’t be back at my laptop until later this weekend, where I can really look at it.
@Oreo2005 why? Plenty of people around here don’t speak English. I’ve seen Spanish, French, Russian, Chinese and Korean. If you don’t speak/read those languages, ignore the post. If you’re really curious, you can use Google Translate, which is pretty amazing.
Not gonna lie...I like this. I like it a lot. It reminds me of a RL T-38. I really, really like how a substantial pitch up is required at liftoff. T:W is realistic, though IMHO the wing loading is a bit low for this configuration (pointy jet with smallish wing, the T-38 is 60+ lbs/sq ft, this one is less than half that)...eh, perhaps not, given its more of a delta/diamond shaped wing. Overall, I don’t think it’s too maneuverable, in fact, I think the roll rate is a tad slow. But it’s a blast to fly and that’s most important, nice work!
Very nice WWII replica build, flies quite nicely, and IMHO, very realistically. Build quality is pretty good, though the lettering does stick out a little more than what I’d be satisfied with. But, overall, the flight dynamics, realistic features and thought that went into this is at a very high level, I like it, nice work!
Humorous. The build itself follows the outer mold line fairly accurately, with a few exceptions...the windscreen being a notable example. FedEx logo is well done, I will admit and the wrapping is pretty good. But it would look better in black, IMHO, perhaps you’ll do a more historically accurate livery soon? Flight model needs a little work, as it flies way too fast down low and way too slow up high. Highlight is the stability, which is good, the SR was a big jet, so the smooth, stable control response is what I would expect. I would increase the slow speed control responsiveness a little bit more as landing takes a bit too much anticipation (but, really, how would I know? Never even flew the SR sim). Acceleration is ridiculously fast and brake stopping power is better than a 737 on auto brakes MAX. Revising the flight model probably wouldn’t take too much to yield more accurate results: The drag points are probably in the ballpark and I would simply lower total thrust and revise the throttle input to incorporate IAS (ram air effect) and altitude. Revising the weight and fuel to RL numbers would also help greatly with realism, the RL jet was a fairly large bird at over 150,000 lbs. Last, I would revise the cockpit view to make it to approximate the RL cockpit view.
So, looked at this and it can be fixed, but in so many ways, I would need to know what your design objectives are in order to alter it in a way that is suitable to your objectives. The main problem is that pulling back on the stick doesn’t raise the nose because the CoL is really far back and the CoM is really far forward. The glider has a long nose, but it’s also composed of a bunch of short fuselage sections, instead of a single long section. You can change that and save 300-500 lbs. For a glider, weight is very important, as it won’t glide nicely if the wing loading is too high. The wings are set quite far back, which moves the CoL towards the tail and reduces maneuverability (think “a long distance between CoM and CoL will make for a more stable, but less maneuverable design”). The fix for that is to either move the wings farther forward or to add weight to the tail and move the CoM back towards the CoL. In any event, you can try these fixes: Move the wings forward and reduce the distance from the CoM to the CoL. Increase the size of the horizontal stab and/or elevator surfaces. Add weight at the tail. And I’d actually change those multiple fuse sections to a single section instead of 24 individual parts and save weight.
@FairFireFlight actually, when Chuck Yeager was the defense attaché to Pakistan, he worked with the PAF in 1971 to put AIM-9s on the MiG-19, not sure if these were the S type MiGs or not. It’s in his book, “Yeager”, not sure if Ricardo here is depicting the AIM-9 in his build, but the PAF MiG-19s did carry them, at least for a short while.
Very nice, good flight dynamics, very pleasing to fly. The LG work, the bane of any Bearcat build, is particularly impressive. The RL plane accelerated very quickly, was very light on the touch and responsive, this one is the same. The fact that the tail lifts into a 2 point attitude during acceleration, as well as the fact it doesn’t nose over at the slightest brake application on landing is quite pleasing. It rolls around 90 degrees per second at 250 mph IAS, seems a little slow to me, I looked for the RL roll rate, no luck fining it though. As comparison, the FW-190 had a 180 degree roll rate at 250 mph IAS and the F8F’s roll rate has always been described as excellent. The turn rate seems good, haven’t put it on my laptop to see what the max G is, should pull over 7.5Gs fairly easily, though IRL, the plane initially had those break away wingtips which broke away over 7.5Gs (later changed). Overall, excellent work, which I could Spotlight, but I can’t!
@DaDerpachu123 hi. Yes, so this was an interesting build; I wanted to make a relatively simple replica, and this is only 222 parts. I used the default wings, instead of building them up with fuselage and intake pieces, then burying scaled wings inside. It kept the part count down, but it’s probably the biggest visual detractor from the whole thing. If I were to do it again, I’d probably do better wings, though the Phantom’s wings aren’t simple with leading edge flaps, spoilers and the kink in them. Probably would add at least 50 or 60 parts for both wings. The thin wing shape forced me to make the main gear skinny, though IRL, the F-4E’s MLG is noticeably beefy. I also used the stock nose gear for part count, as well as the fact that it’s roughly the same as the F-4’s nose gear. Also, this was a pre-Blueprints mod build, so the shape is fairly close but not as accurate as it should be, especially with the forward fuselage “droop”. I’d also reduce the power on the engines through FT because it is overpowered and possibly do some drag reduction...neither of those things would add to the part count and would be absolutely transparent to the casual player. But, I might also succumb to an unfortunate tendency to go overboard and make a 1,000+ part replica, much the same as I’ve done with so many other more recent builds. But, I’m glad you like this!
Well, too bad this isn’t the 19th Century, these two probably won’t find a reason to fight each other. Perhaps, launch the Victory and Hermione against each other to slug it out with muzzle loading cannon fire. I do have to say, though, I’m impressed by their capabilities, which are quite significant.
@Alex9000 ok, understood. You do realize that you could post this as an unlisted, then release it to the general audience when it’s ready? This really is a very good build, so wouldn’t want you to lose upvotes or notice by posting stuff that’s not 100% complete.
Way, way better than I initially thought from the two word description and standard screenshots. Roll is nice and snappy, as it ought to be, at least for the earlier Mes (not sure if the Gustav had gotten really heavy in roll yet). Turning seems just right (tested this on the Dev Console and 310 mph / 500 kph yielded around 7.5 Gs). Speeds are close, around 310 mph / 500 kph at SL, 400 mph / 650 kph at 30,000’. Stall is around 80 mph / 130 kph (indicated), which is also close. The acceleration / energy retention may be higher than IRL, but it does slow down in turns, which is very good and it doesn’t accelerate flying straight up, very nice. It is around 35-30% lighter than it should be, but it’s not ridiculously light, though that makes the wing loading is a little light as well and gives it better maneuverability. But SP counts the tail surfaces in wing area, so you’re also fairly close. The construction is pretty good, some interesting techniques for the German cross insignia on the fuse, as well as getting the canopy and fuselage area correct—very nice work. I also like the details, which you seem to have an eye for, such as the fact the split flaps extend slightly different amounts, as IRL. The landing reflects RL problems with that closely spaced LG...it suddenly becomes a touchy, tricky beast as soon as you touchdown, just as IRL. Honestly, it’s a great job at modeling, if it had a little better/more complete description (even without going overboard), it would get at least 25 upvotes, IMHO.
+2Nice, relatively simple build of a little known rocket fighter prototype with the best part being that you used rockets to power it, so it’s really fun. The pitch rate is adequate and not ridiculously fast, though it could use more pitch and trim authority at lower speeds, as well as for the pattern and landing. It really should roll a lot faster, though, and it should fly a little faster...I’d guesstimate a rocket fighter like this should fly at least 500 KTAS (the Komet was at least that fast), especially down low, and the fastest I saw with this one was around 450 KTAS. Plus, the JATO rocket doesn’t add much thrust, if any...but it’s impressively cool looking with that big flame and lots more smoke! But it’s not too far off and it’s better than making it a 1,000 knot plane. It glides way faster than I would have expected for something with 14 lbs/ft2 of wing loading. But it works if you start out at 10,000’ high key above the runway midpoint and fly 170 KIAS and 20 degrees nose low during the 360 to landing. You do have to carefully time the round out and flare to landing, but it lands quite nicely. The last disappointment was the armament... many builders make the same mistake of using cannons as air to air armament, but the cannons really can’t hit an aerial target unless they’re XML modded. Yours are not here and it’s impossible to hit an aerial target, which is why I stick to using the original wing guns for my builds. Nice job overall.
+2MUST upvote and he Beetle!
I got this one up to 3,243 KTAS, around 400 knots faster than you managed. But I had to zoom down from 200,000’ to do it. Very wobbly above 150,000’, but always remained stable enough, though I thought I was going to pull a Neil Armstrong and bounce off the upper atmosphere because the controls were fairly ineffective at that altitude...super fun ride, though!
+1@JaeBeansS well, glad you like it. There are some structural techniques that this build’s relative simplicity make easy to see. But I wouldn’t use this to create a flight model, it uses brute power to overcome the unrealistically high drag from the built up wings, instead of using drag reduction, as it should be done. As a result, it accelerates too quickly, plus it’s not as fast as the RL jet at low altitudes. It also probably has too much turn capability. Fixing the flight model wouldn’t take too much, though, it isn’t as hard as it seems to make a “good enough” flight model in SP.
+1@Brencool35 yes, you can do multiselect and then angle all the parts an appropriate amount. It probably won't take much of an angle.
+1This plane doesn’t have a pitching up problem at low altitude, that’s what trim is for...but, if you want to make the trim more neutral, you could add a half a degree of leading edge up angle on the horizontal stab.
What do you mean by a 1:1 flight model? We can discuss how SP is realistic (three NACA wing profiles with the accurate lift and drag curves, CoG and CoL, decreasing drag and air density with altitude, fuel consumption when flying as a RL plane would, etc.) and how it’s not as accurate as it could be (no supersonic effects, builders tend to cover wings which throws off drag effects, there’s no actual “air” in SP, so even parts which would be hidden from airflow IRL produce drag). But there are workarounds for most of these things, it is possible to make a “good” or even an “excellent” flight model, but you’ll never make a 100% accurate or a 1:1 flight model in SP...there are simply too many variables between RL and a simulation. Heck, even RL full motion flight simulators used in pilot training aren’t 100% accurate, but they are close enough to fly fairly accurately.
+1Oh, and for heaven’s sake, why are you NOT using intake pieces to model the rudder? The rounded trailing edge of the tail looks like crap!
+5Two words: FLIGHT MODEL. In order to capture the Phantom’s flight characteristics you need to ensure very high speeds at low level (nearly Mach 1.2 at sea level), but no faster than Mach 2.23 at altitude (probably will take an engine program to boost power at high IAS, “ram air effect” and reduce power at low air density/altitude). It needs to be able of pulling at least 7.33+ G instantaneously...but more because IRL pilots use a G meter and fly to the limits of the aircraft but almost always have a performance reserve which allows a pilot pull harder and overstress the airframe. The build should bleed a good amount of airspeed/altitude/energy in hard turns, as it would IRL. It should also slow down when the throttles are pulled back, hidden SBs may be required, depending on how many drag points you have. Wing area should be approximately the same size as RL to approximate wing loading and be sure to use the SYMMETRIC AIRFOIL...I have no idea why builders put Cessna wings on high performance jets which have symmetric airfoils IRL. One thing SP does model is the performance characteristics of cambered vs. semi-symmetric vs. symmetric airfoils, so why not use them? And lastly, the Phantom didn’t fly like an airliner...so don’t make it fly like one. It may not have the turn circle of a MiG-21, but it was a fighter and was fairly good when light, so model appropriately...here’s an inspiration if you need one!
+4This isn’t bad, I think you did the right thing by prioritizing the rocket propulsion, even if the propulsion system is not throttleable here, as it was IRL. But any Komet build, being a representation of the first and only rocket-powered fighter, needs to use a rocket motor. I would suggest the next time to ditch the cannon armament for the wing guns as in SP there is no way to hit another aircraft with the cannons...it’s a limitation with the game, but for many reasons they just don’t work air to air and the Komet never was employed as an air to ground platform, strictly as an anti-bomber interceptor. So, I would use the wing gun instead of the in game cannons. You could also reduce the weight of the aircraft (which was 6,000+ lbs on takeoff) and drag points (you have 3,800+ pts currently) on the build and that might help you make a more accurate flight model. I’d also give it more nose up authority for low speed handling as the B model of the Komet didn’t land much faster than 130 mph, otherwise it would float in ground effect right out of the landing zone.
I really like this. Nice flight model, seems realistic enough to me...looks good overall, I’m sure the camo was tricky as I can see a couple of little compromises you made for it, but it looks like the RL jet.
Very well done and super fun to fly. Feels very close to a RL aircraft, seriously. The takeoff and landing characteristics are exceptional...tricky if you over control it, but docile if you do it right. The roll rate and turn rate are great, flight model is very well done here. Nice work!
+4@Liew and so it does, I tried it again and it seems to only display for certain parameters which aren’t clear to me, operator error on my part!
Congrats on the PPL!
Anyone know if the radar display works?
Nice work here. Yes, using the default sideways traction settings of 90% on the main LG makes it nearly impossible to control on takeoff. However the fix is simple: Just reduce the sideways traction on the main wheels to 50% and it’s much more controllable. You can also experiment with raising the sideways traction on the tailwheel, which may also help, but the fix is simple.
So, I’m on iOS and have a question: How does the radar display work? I have the air to air target locked (flashing red) and dead ahead of me, but nothing on the radar display? Does this require an AG activation?
@edensk I think you’re getting bogged down in the details. I do not disagree that this build’s AoA limits are not as high as the RL jet’s. However, high performance jets are programmed to AoA, as in to not allow the pilots to exceed those limits. But pilots of high performance aircraft such as the F-16 fly as much by feel in those phases of flight...buffet (something this build actually replicates, but which you don’t mention), nose track and G loading...even wind noise...are much more obvious indicators of aircraft maneuvering performance and are actually replicated pretty well here, far better than even my builds. Those subtle cues that are sensed automatically are why an experienced with 2,000 hrs in type knows more than a newbie wingman. You may have watched a bunch of videos and played DCS, but as a retired USAF pilots who has flown more than 4,000 hrs total, including more than 500 of those hours in what the Brits call “fast jets”, I think this flight model is pretty good given SP’s limitations. And just to be sure, as I didn’t fly F-16s myself, I looked it up: Read this AFM I found on the FAS website (these guys have a little of everything): F-16 Combat Aircraft Fundamentals and you’ll see how G loading and not an AoA number is a pilot’s main reference to maximizing turn performance in the Viper. We can further discuss it if you would like.
+8@edensk and what speed? 300 KIAS to get 4 Gs? And what did you get at 420 KIAS? Just curious.
@edensk a fully loaded Viper will barely pull 4 Gs at 300 knots. 300 knots is fairly slow, a better test is to see how many it pulls at 420 knots.
+2Well, this is a superior build. There are all too many Vipers on site and I thought this was going to be just another typical F-16 build. Build quality and flight model are both great. Cockpit work is breathtaking. I’m going to have to take it apart and figure out some of the really cool things you did here. It’s anything but typical, it’s truly excellent. Well done.
+2Well, I have to commend the build itself. Closest build on site to the RL jet; I myself have never tried to build one of these because of the shape, which is difficult to replicate in SP. you’ve done a good job there, surely. I wish it did have the drop tanks, though, as I think that would add to the F-80’s beautiful aesthetic. Flight performance...well, it is simple to takeoff, fly and land, no real vices. The acceleration, like the RL jet, is slow, which was a common issue on early jets, so nice there. Top speed down low lacks a little, oh well, but it feels fairly light and tossable, which is good. And, oh boy, love the guns...can shred any target you hit! And you didn’t make the mistake of putting cannons...which never hit airborne targets...on this build. The 6x.50 Cals probably weren’t that effective, but I like it!
+3@asteroidbook345 try doubling up the nose wheel, then nudging them together so that they appear as one. Also, a weight imbalance between the two sides can also cause veering. My advice, of course, tends to assume a neat/symmetrical build technique, though the sideways traction thing fixes swerving all other things being done correctly.
Depends. As a RL pilot with more than 4,000 hours of actual flight time, I like the builder to relay all functionalities, including all AGs. Power settings and takeoff/landing/maneuvering speeds are good to know, as well as any built-in limitations and flying peculiarities. The player doesn’t have to read them if they don’t want to, so what’s the heartburn? I have fairly long descriptions as I attempt to imbue my builds with many of the RL flight characteristics and I like to make sure the player knows what they need to know to not get frustrated. As a result, complex builds tend to have long descriptions. Simple builds, on the other hand, might not have a long description. But there is a time and place for both long and short descriptions, as appropriate.
+4What @asteroidbook345 said. Making sure the nose wheel is centered and the main wheels are precisely opposite each other is important, but it really does come down to lowering the traction on the nose/front wheels. I do that for all my builds and it’s a life saver.
Beautiful work, looks good, handles well and performs realistically. Also, there aren’t that many of these on the site, which makes it that much more unique. I like it a lot.
+1I’d amend the description to remove the curse words before this gets reported and removed.
Actually, not a half bad effort. Better thought out and executed than 90% of the builds out there. Plausible, not ridiculous. A couple of suggestions which might help take this build to the next level: Trim is reversed from RL, where trimming nose up is accomplished by clicking back on the little hat switch on top of the control stick. The way it’s set up here is really counterintuitive...pilots think “pull back, trees get smaller” and while the controls follow this logic, the trim controls do the opposite. Make it turn just a little better. I get you’re going for an interceptor that is optimized for straight line speed over turn capability...buuuut...it should be able to turn at least to 4 Gs or so. Added to this, if it had more pitch authority, it would be easier to land in a nose up attitude and at a slower speed. If you’re intentionally seeking a high landing speed, suggest you decrease the wing area instead of limiting the pitch, which is actually the reason RL aircraft have high landing speeds. Your build only has about 35 lb/sq ft wing loading, which is more in line with a WWII fighter than a 1960s circa jet, which often had 70-100 lb/sq ft wing loading. That would get you the effect you’re seeking here. But the other numbers are good and the realistic fuel quantity is great, though it could have just a little more thrust and speed brake power. But, overall, you’re on the right track and I like your build style...plus the insignia is fantastic!
+1Interesting...unfortunately, the green HUD/gunsight glass is really difficult to deal with. I actually deleted it and it made aiming much easier. Interesting build.
Finally! Makes my iPhone 12 noticeably heat up, as there’s some amazing detail here.
+3Interesting build, clearly inspired by the F-94. Suggestions on future builds, recommend you put hidden SBs which activate with the landing gear extension and flap extension. IRL, those two actions add a lot of drag and are used fairly regularly to control speed as you’re approaching the runway. One time, LA Center kept us high and fast coming in to land in Vegas and we were extending our flaps and landing gear as soon as we could (below the limiting airspeed) so that we could get the jet slowed and in parameters prior to getting on final approach. For your build, the SBs are quite effective in slowing down your build, but the LG and flaps would be used more as the jet approaches the runway prior to landing and, thus, ought to contribute to total drag as they’re extended.
+2@UltraLight or you could consider the elevator movement on the ground as the manipulation of the surface during the walk around, push the elevator trailing edge down, the trim tab should move up / remain neutral, push the elevator trailing edge up, the trim tab should move down / remain neutral.
+1I figured out the rear gunner problem, I think there’s an extra connection on either the gun or rotator. Will try and fix later. Also, recommend the following: Cut the power to 25-40% of what it’s at now. You’re currently using 1000 hp per engine, lower it to 250 - 400 hp. The German Mercedes G.IVa had around 260 hp and the US Liberty produced around 400 hp. When I use 25% power to fly, it accelerates realistically and flies at a period correct 90 knots (around 115 mph). Still a little bit fast, but very close to RL performance for this type of aircraft.
So, on my initial flight with this build, I have to say, it actually flies fairly well. It’s significantly faster than the RL aircraft of this era and type, but that can be fixed. The trim controls are reversed from what they would be IRL, you might want to look at changing that. I also noticed that something flies off your build up if you push over into negative Gs. I’ll keep looking at this and figure out the gunner situation, but I won’t be back at my laptop until later this weekend, where I can really look at it.
+1@Dest35 sure thing. Just tag me on an unlisted and I’ll take a look.
+1@Dest35 you’re calling me out? That’s funny 😀
+2@NaoDorime you’re welcome. Is it also true that you don’t sleep?
@Oreo2005 why? Plenty of people around here don’t speak English. I’ve seen Spanish, French, Russian, Chinese and Korean. If you don’t speak/read those languages, ignore the post. If you’re really curious, you can use Google Translate, which is pretty amazing.
Not gonna lie...I like this. I like it a lot. It reminds me of a RL T-38. I really, really like how a substantial pitch up is required at liftoff. T:W is realistic, though IMHO the wing loading is a bit low for this configuration (pointy jet with smallish wing, the T-38 is 60+ lbs/sq ft, this one is less than half that)...eh, perhaps not, given its more of a delta/diamond shaped wing. Overall, I don’t think it’s too maneuverable, in fact, I think the roll rate is a tad slow. But it’s a blast to fly and that’s most important, nice work!
+1Very nice WWII replica build, flies quite nicely, and IMHO, very realistically. Build quality is pretty good, though the lettering does stick out a little more than what I’d be satisfied with. But, overall, the flight dynamics, realistic features and thought that went into this is at a very high level, I like it, nice work!
+1Humorous. The build itself follows the outer mold line fairly accurately, with a few exceptions...the windscreen being a notable example. FedEx logo is well done, I will admit and the wrapping is pretty good. But it would look better in black, IMHO, perhaps you’ll do a more historically accurate livery soon? Flight model needs a little work, as it flies way too fast down low and way too slow up high. Highlight is the stability, which is good, the SR was a big jet, so the smooth, stable control response is what I would expect. I would increase the slow speed control responsiveness a little bit more as landing takes a bit too much anticipation (but, really, how would I know? Never even flew the SR sim). Acceleration is ridiculously fast and brake stopping power is better than a 737 on auto brakes MAX. Revising the flight model probably wouldn’t take too much to yield more accurate results: The drag points are probably in the ballpark and I would simply lower total thrust and revise the throttle input to incorporate IAS (ram air effect) and altitude. Revising the weight and fuel to RL numbers would also help greatly with realism, the RL jet was a fairly large bird at over 150,000 lbs. Last, I would revise the cockpit view to make it to approximate the RL cockpit view.
+1Nope. Get a new username when you turn 13 years old.
+2So, looked at this and it can be fixed, but in so many ways, I would need to know what your design objectives are in order to alter it in a way that is suitable to your objectives. The main problem is that pulling back on the stick doesn’t raise the nose because the CoL is really far back and the CoM is really far forward. The glider has a long nose, but it’s also composed of a bunch of short fuselage sections, instead of a single long section. You can change that and save 300-500 lbs. For a glider, weight is very important, as it won’t glide nicely if the wing loading is too high. The wings are set quite far back, which moves the CoL towards the tail and reduces maneuverability (think “a long distance between CoM and CoL will make for a more stable, but less maneuverable design”). The fix for that is to either move the wings farther forward or to add weight to the tail and move the CoM back towards the CoL. In any event, you can try these fixes: Move the wings forward and reduce the distance from the CoM to the CoL. Increase the size of the horizontal stab and/or elevator surfaces. Add weight at the tail. And I’d actually change those multiple fuse sections to a single section instead of 24 individual parts and save weight.
Interesting? Check. Accurate? Possibly, not really familiar with this jet. Flight model? I think so...God-awful ugly? Absolutely!
+3@FairFireFlight actually, when Chuck Yeager was the defense attaché to Pakistan, he worked with the PAF in 1971 to put AIM-9s on the MiG-19, not sure if these were the S type MiGs or not. It’s in his book, “Yeager”, not sure if Ricardo here is depicting the AIM-9 in his build, but the PAF MiG-19s did carry them, at least for a short while.
+3Very nice, good flight dynamics, very pleasing to fly. The LG work, the bane of any Bearcat build, is particularly impressive. The RL plane accelerated very quickly, was very light on the touch and responsive, this one is the same. The fact that the tail lifts into a 2 point attitude during acceleration, as well as the fact it doesn’t nose over at the slightest brake application on landing is quite pleasing. It rolls around 90 degrees per second at 250 mph IAS, seems a little slow to me, I looked for the RL roll rate, no luck fining it though. As comparison, the FW-190 had a 180 degree roll rate at 250 mph IAS and the F8F’s roll rate has always been described as excellent. The turn rate seems good, haven’t put it on my laptop to see what the max G is, should pull over 7.5Gs fairly easily, though IRL, the plane initially had those break away wingtips which broke away over 7.5Gs (later changed). Overall, excellent work, which I could Spotlight, but I can’t!
+3@DaDerpachu123 hi. Yes, so this was an interesting build; I wanted to make a relatively simple replica, and this is only 222 parts. I used the default wings, instead of building them up with fuselage and intake pieces, then burying scaled wings inside. It kept the part count down, but it’s probably the biggest visual detractor from the whole thing. If I were to do it again, I’d probably do better wings, though the Phantom’s wings aren’t simple with leading edge flaps, spoilers and the kink in them. Probably would add at least 50 or 60 parts for both wings. The thin wing shape forced me to make the main gear skinny, though IRL, the F-4E’s MLG is noticeably beefy. I also used the stock nose gear for part count, as well as the fact that it’s roughly the same as the F-4’s nose gear. Also, this was a pre-Blueprints mod build, so the shape is fairly close but not as accurate as it should be, especially with the forward fuselage “droop”. I’d also reduce the power on the engines through FT because it is overpowered and possibly do some drag reduction...neither of those things would add to the part count and would be absolutely transparent to the casual player. But, I might also succumb to an unfortunate tendency to go overboard and make a 1,000+ part replica, much the same as I’ve done with so many other more recent builds. But, I’m glad you like this!
Well, too bad this isn’t the 19th Century, these two probably won’t find a reason to fight each other. Perhaps, launch the Victory and Hermione against each other to slug it out with muzzle loading cannon fire. I do have to say, though, I’m impressed by their capabilities, which are quite significant.
+6