This one is fairly easy to fly, hover and control. Kind of a rarity around here. It’s a little too easy and stable, IMHO, but it’s not like we have a plethora of real world pilots on site, so I’m sure it’s about the right speed for the majority of players. You do have to pay attention and make positive, but small inputs to land it where you want to. I managed to land on one of the destroyer’s heli pads...first attempt, but it took a little concentration to land it without whacking the main rotor on the superstructure, which, BTW, actually is taller than the aft superstructure itself. I should go try and shwack the convoy next. Fun. Nice work.
If I were to choose the best single build on site, I couldn’t do it...but I would put this in the top 3. Ever. So much thought, so much research, outstanding flight model. I’d do a more complete write up, but I can’t because I’m just simply flabbergasted how good this is. Better than mine. Certainly, there are new SP features which have been made since I originally built mine (blueprints mod, glass, Funky Trees), but even with these. Really, my only two complaints are the fact that it’s horribly laggy, even on my iPhone 8 and it lacks a Mach meter (I broke the code on that one a long time ago). So, it was hard to properly evaluate how much it slows in hard turns (EDIT: It does, probably a little too quickly, but it does, so, good). But, nothing else. Just wish it wasn’t so laggy, it would be my favorite build.
@NotSoNormalPioneer all USAF pilots are officers and all officers have to attend a commissioning source, either OTS, if you already have a college/university degree, ROTC, if attending a civilian university, or the U.S. Air Academy. This all happens well prior to pilot training, which happens well prior to even applying to the U-2 program.
Yes, because you had to unlearn a lot of things you had ingrained from flying other airplanes, like easing forward on the yoke upon touchdown. If you tried that in the U-2, the jet would try and leave the runway.
The Academy was tough, but hard work paid off. Pilot training was probably the hardest single year of my life. I was lucky to graduate. Relearning how to fly in the U-2 during my interview. But life is a series of challenges that you either overcome or fail while trying.
@Numbers yes, it's like landing a giant, heavy, twitchy glider that doesn't want to stop flying. The preferred landing attitude was "slightly tailwheel first", which meant the wing was stalled and not producing lift ("flying") upon touchdown. As for the chase car not being there, there were actually a number of scenarios where that would occur. Most frequently, when making a sharp turn onto the runway (AKA "90 degree run-in"), if you weren't careful, you could spin out in the chase car. What typically followed was a "You're on your own!" call on the radio. But we trained to do "no voice" landings, so we could land the jet fairly well without the chase car, if we had to. I'd, from time to time, fly a practice sortie and request all no voice landings.
So, I went there myself and tried entering the US standard color codes. It returned the correct shade, but haven’t figured out how exactly to make it return the hex color codes...any suggestions?
Totally fictional, so I can’t judge it vs a RL example. But, the flight model is fantastic...if this were a RL aircraft, the test report would call it challenging, yet manageable. All too often, VTOL builds in SP, fictional or replicas are way too difficult to fly. RL VTOL aircraft, such as the Harrier, are challenging to fly and take all the pilot’s concentration to do it right...I know this from several former USMC AV-8 pilots I know, but they’re not impossible to fly, otherwise they’d crash more often than they already do. This one seems right, challenging but not impossible to fly. Nice work!
Pretty good. Build quality is great, it’s very well detailed, the mold lines are right on and it just looks “right”. I would have included the swastica for historical accuracy, but I understand your reticence to do so. Flight model highlights are general performance and turn rate. It is tough to take off, not quite in the same way as RL powerful prop airplanes, but challenging nonetheless. Just keep the tailwheel on the ground and there’s no directional control problems. Would be nice if there was enough authority to lift the tailwheel prior to taking off, but it’s not impossible to control this build. Something to improve is the roll rate. I timed it at 45 deg/sec. The roll rate on my 737 is better than this build and though the Ta-152’s roll rate was a little slower than the shorter winged FW-190 (which had a fantastically good roll rate), it was nonetheless very good, at least comparable to the P-51’s.
Some very interesting build techniques employed here. Plus, your paneling work is absolutely perfect. In game, I kept looking at the nacelles, trying to convince myself that it was some new shaped piece I wasn’t aware of, but, no, they’re paneled! Nice work!
Quite nice and engaging for what it is: A simple Sabre build. The guns are kinda OTT...the .50 cals certainly had the rate of fire, but your build’s guns also just shred anything they touch. The .50 cal made a lot of holes, but US pilots wanted more punch, which is why the M39 and eventually M61 cannons were developed (interesting aside on the “Gun Val” Sabres tested with the M39 cannon). Anyway, easy to fly, roll rate is just a bit too slow, but nice, semi-realistic rendition that’s simple, nice work!
@KnightOfRen are they and do they? I have yet to see any evidence of them being unfair and doing anything outside the rules. I personally know several of the Mods and do not believe that they willfully disregard the site rules. If you have any proof to the contrary, please let me know.
Well, comparing a temporary or permanent user ban is, IMHO, a fallacy known as “false equivalency”. This is a website, while incarceration or the death penalty IRL is...real life with real consequences. To equate an SP ban to RL isn’t valid. Besides, just follow the website rules. There isn’t anything amoral to the posted rules, so there’s no compelling reason for breaking any of the forum rules. I myself have been around here for nearly 5 years without a single incident. I’ve said some controversial things, but they’ve all been controversial builder opinions, such as “Unlimited Fuel is the Dumbest Thing in SP”...I don’t generally stray into politics, religion, etc., but have no qualms about answering questions put forth because I present my case in a calm, respectful manner and in a way that adheres to the rules. Your second position, that Mods should consider the point total (relative fame) of a particular user prior to issuing a ban is essentially an argument that equal justice should not be applied equally. This, from a moral standpoint is wrong. No man or user ought to be above the law. If the rules are not applied equally, then the rules are compromised. Consider this: If two users, one with 27K points (me) and a second with 6,483 points (you) say exactly the same thing, but you’re banned, while I am not...would that be fair? Who decides what level deserves what reduction in sentence? The Mods? You yourself are complaining that you don’t trust the Mods to administer fairly, so why would you assume the Mods would make these more complex and morally ambiguous decisions in accordance with how you see things?
Hits: Build quality and details. Camo job. You really captured the often missed details here, AB shape, spoilers, custom landing gear and camo job is especially noteworthy. It seems a lot of research and care went into this build. Next time, you could use the triangle method of wing building, which would allow a thicker root and thinner tip.
Misses: High acceleration, flaps on trim/no dedicated trim, bobbing when pulling back. Solutions to these are 1. Using drag reduction techniques, 2. Learn to incorporate trim into your builds, like almost every RL jet ever built. 3. “DamperMultiplier=10000” on your stab rotators. Nice overall, especially for your experience. Keep up the research and attention to detail, as well as learning SP building tricks and techniques and you’ll be platinum in no time.
Definitions are important. The Wright Brothers were certainly not the only people who invented the concepts, pieces and parts required for an “airplane”. But they were the ones to first incorporate them and build the first successful heavier than air manned aircraft capable of controlled, powered, sustained flight. Santos-Dumont certainly was close to doing so in December of 1903, as was Samuel Langley. Santos-Dumont achieved the same feat independently, but not until 1906. It has to be understood, though, that media was not as widely disseminated or pervasive as it is today, so if SD...and the entire nation of Brazil (Brasil!)...doubted the WBs’ achievement, it’s understandable. Samuel Langley was U.S. government sponsored and also close to success in late 1903, but missed when his “Aerodrome” came off its houseboat-mounted launching mechanism/catapult and went straight into the Potomac River, along with its unfortunate pilot, Charles Manley (who was also the chief engineer and survived). Langley’s engine was much more powerful than the WB engine, but the Aerodrome’s control system and structure was lacking. None other than the Smithsonian Institute sponsored Langley’s subsequent effort to rework the Aerodrome and then fly it in 1914 in an attempt to claim that Langley had first invented the successful airplane, but, clearly, the WBs had already done so and aircraft were far more advanced and developed by 1914. Note that the term “heavier than air manned aircraft capable of controlled, powered, sustained flight” is very specific...we are not talking about lighter than air balloons or dirigibles, gliders or (essentially unmanned, uncontrolled) model aircraft, all of which had flown a long time prior to 17 December, 1903. However, to make the airplane a useful invention, all of these features had to be incorporated together and lead the way for today’s aircraft. That is what is meant by “inventing the airplane”.
@MrADS yes, agree the drag model is imperfect, perhaps if we get an SP2 that will get a fix. The comment on the wing area is about how SP calculates wing area vs RL. IRL, an aircraft’s published wing area almost always only includes the wing area for the main wing(s), it hardly ever includes the tail surface(s). This may be due to the fact that a conventional horizontal stabilizer actually pushes down to keep the nose up on an inherently stable design. The FW was an inherently stable design, as were all successful aircraft prior to the advent of flight control computers. Canard aircraft wing area may be the exception as the canard actually lifts the nose of an aircraft and contributes to total lift, but I am not 100% certain as I haven’t dealt much with canard designs. SP, however, adds the area of ALL the wing surfaces, including the tail, on the build to arrive at the total wing area that you see in the build screen and the published post and all wing surfaces, including the tail, lift up...there’s no way to invert the lift in SP on a curved or SS airfoil (I understand why this was designed this way, but it’s not true to life). This is misleading as when a builder builds to match the RL wing area, builders who do not understand this difference usually will build undersized main wings, as you have here. The FW’s wing area is around 196 sq ft, that’s only for the main wing; however, your published wing area here is only 145 sq ft, and that number includes all the wing surfaces present in your build...main wing, horizontal and vertical stabilizer and significantly less wing area than the RL plane. The good news is that the SP model is pretty good at replicating an aircraft’s RL behavior if you ensure the main wing area (minus the tail surfaces) matches the RL wing area and if the airfoil shape is similar to the RL airfoil (here, I’d use the semi-symmetrical wing).
Very nice, especially for being so low on the part count. Roll rate and speed is right on with the historical performance, both of which were hallmarks of the RL plane, so good focus emulating those features. Turn performance is a little sluggish, IMHO, however, I haven’t put it on the Dev console to see the numbers...just my impression flying it on my iPhone. And it doesn’t lose any speed on the turns, probably a result of having the drag centered on a few parts. But SP is weird with how the program reacts when reducing drag. The lack of trim is something I would have done differently and the stall speed is really high, as high as an F-100. Remember that SP adds the wing area of the tail, not just the main wing, as the wing area numbers you’ll find will reflect. But, quite an engaging build of a great subject, nice work and Spotlight!
This is very fun to fly, in a frustrating way. Easy to start flying, it takes a deft hand to hover it well and transition to forward flight is tricky to achieve without losing control. But, it’s fun and challenging enough to hold my attention. Nice build, I like it.
@Hedero, maybe. It’s a lot of work and I haven’t started anything lately, so it’ll take awhile even if I started today. But I do occasionally think about what jet I would build next, a B-47, an A-4, an F-104 or a B-52 are all on the top of my potentials list.
Yes. But be prepared for a minimum of Upvotes, regardless of how good it may be. Or how good you think it is, as every artist loves their art. The lack of Upvotes is often simply a case of the number of followers you have and it takes time to gather a following. But the path forward requires uploading your creations, so go for it!
@AsteroidAsteroidTheBook surely, but I don’t think the Mods would remove for this. But, we’ll move on and I understand your trepidation surrounding this topic. I simply ask you to think it over and consider the issue moving forward, whether or not you agree or disagree. Nice twin boom and if you tag me on an unlisted, I can probably help to resolve your intake blending issues.
@AsteroidAsteroidTheBook yeah, like me. Screw PC culture, it’s an abomination and runs directly counter to free speech. It’s the idea that one must be polite, or suffer the consequences. Well, as a free human being, I should be able to express my thoughts and you should be individually free to disagree with me. In the past, before this stupid idea of Political Correctness evolved, the tend was to generally allow free thought, speech and expression. Those you disagreed with, you either told them so, or you simply avoided them. This was in line with “keeping polite company”. If someone decided to espouse controversial/reprehensible ideas, we simply disagreed and society moved on. Now, we shame them for simply thinking the “wrong” thing, no debate, no discussion. The kicker is that the idea of wrong or right is established by only one side with a single opinion and pushed on the rest of this with the mandate to “agree or die”. Disagreeing with things because they run counter to thousands of years of society, run counter to religious dictates, personal mores or standards or simply logic doesn’t necessarily make someone evil, it simply is a disagreement over an issue. A hallmark of a vibrant and just society is the free expression, exchange and debate of ideas in search of the truth. Ever heard “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?”. That’s no longer the mantra of today’s society and we are losing more freedom daily, a loss of free thought. And don’t kid yourself, this isn’t about truth...if so, PC culture wouldn’t seek to upend every standard or idea, but it does. It’s about power. As Pontius Pilate said: “What is truth?” What he meant is: “Who cares what the right thing is, as long as I have the power.”
@UltraLight what you’re describing is the perception of what the current generation thinks of the older people they call “boomers”, but it’s not the entire meaning of the term. The original term means someone of the “baby boomer” generation, those who were born during the baby boom that followed when returning service members started families after WWII. Bill Clinton is a baby boomer, as is Bill Gates and Madonna. The post is titled “Ok boomer”, as in an exasperated response to an older person, which I referenced by pointing out that the M55 isn’t really an aircraft of the “boomer” generation; the aircraft of that generation are aircraft such as the F-80, F-86, Super Constellation, Hawker Hunter, MiG-15...the M55 came about around 25 years after that generation of aircraft and therefore is not part of the “boomers’” generation of aircraft.
Well, wouldn’t call this a “Boomer” build. It carriers neither bombs nor is it a design that cam immediately after the Second World War. BTW, there are better/smoother techniques for blending those intakes into the fuselage.
@F89Scorpian not quite. It wasn’t the difference in the sizes of the target, the F6F being somewhat smaller than a bomber. It’s nearly impossible to hit either a bomber or fighter sized target with unguided rockets, unless you have some sort of computer assisted aiming. And that F6F wasn’t maneuvering, it was reportedly in a gentle turn during the attempted engagement. And having flown many hours of form, it’s actually easier to close on another aircraft if it’s in a gentle turn. There was a problem with the F-89s’ targeting system and they didn’t even have gunsights, which had been removed due to the targeting upgrade, so the task was impossible. Perhaps if their systems were working as advertised they could have accomplished the task. But even with fully operational systems, guided missiles are more effective, which explains why unguided rockets have fallen out of favor, despite having been used extensively on a number of aircraft, including this one and the ones you mention, in addition to the F-102 and the CF-100.
@Hedero yes, it’s nice. If I could Spotlight you, I would, but you have many more points than I do. I’ve been flying for more than 30 years, many different aircraft. That gives me a little experience with these things.
@KangaKangaTheRoo I’ve already incorporated the decreased supersonic maneuverability feature into both my Su-11 and my F-20. But the control surfaces move fully, as they did IRL.
@KangaKangaTheRoo the supersonic maneuverability issue isn’t unique to the Hun, it’s a consequence of the localized shockwave effects blanking control surfaces. The all moving horizontal slab, vice elevator at the back of a horizontal stab, is due to this issue. Most supersonic aircraft experience this phenomenon.
@KangaKangaTheRoo the definition of “irreversible” in this context is that they would always move through their entire range. No, the Hun didn’t have the problem, at least not as you’re describing it.
@KangaKangaTheRoo describe this “locked control surfaces” problem with the F-100? The Hun had a few problems, many of which were due to the supersonic regime, which was new to an operational fighter and most of which were sorted out in the first few years of operation. There was inertia coupling, which killed George Welch during testing, and which led to the larger vertical stab, the high landing speed and a tendency to do the dreaded “Sabre Dance”, partially due to the lack of flaps on the A model jet, which killed many young fighter pilots. There was also structural problems which required bracing to fix, but I’m completely unfamiliar of a tendency for the flight controls to “lock up” in flight. The Hun had hydraulically operated, irreversible flight controls, as do most jets like this, which makes me doubt some aerodynamic phenomenon would lead to locked controls...do you have more details of what you’re describing?
Not bad, actually pretty good...and I can say that having built a Hun myself. Certainly looks the part and have to agree, like the clean look myself, though I prefer those two drop tanks, which were almost always present on the bird.
Looks great and the flight model is very, very good. Yeah, the flap falling off is annoying, but easily fixed, see link below. If you try and force it off the runway too early (before about 210 KIAS), it will stall and if you fly too slow on landing (anything below 230 KIAS), it will mush in, just like the RL jet would. It accelerates sufficiently quickly, the top speeds are in the ballpark, both high and low altitude, the turn performance is about right. Far too many SP players think the 104 didn’t turn. It did, but at very high speeds which made for a huge turn circle. It didn’t pull much G slow, which is why 104 pilots flew fast, fast, fast, all the time. The MiG-21 was a better all around dog fighter because it did have turn capability at lower speeds than the 104, though it too bled speed quickly in hard turns due to the delta wing. I also like that this build will decelerate if you raise the nose high. That’s a detail other builders miss when they crank the power on the engine. Nice work. Wish I could Spotlight because this really is one of the superior F-104s on the site.
Well, it’s about 5x heavier and 50% larger than the RL airplane, but the build itself looks really nice and the customization, while not original to the RL lane, captures the whole customized sport plane vibe. Also flies fairly well.
You did the one thing right that almost everyone gets wrong with the Hornet: the landing gear is sufficiently beefy, just like the real jet. It would have been great if you could have had a real cockpit view as it’s almost impossible to land on the boat without it!
Pretty good, actually. Acceleration , turning and roll performance from my brief flight on mobile all seem realistic. Yup, cannons are difficult to impossible to use air to air...SP’s limitation, not your fault, though I do understand there is a workaround. Construction is good, nice use of triangles and intakes for the wings. Nice build, good flight model.
@Daisghosh123 easy fix: Download the build, the interface will display the warning message that the build requires mod(s), then hit the “back” arrow in the bottom left of the construction screen, you’ll see the default starting point (the cockpit with the two blocks stuck to the bottom), then hit the “forward” button and the build, without the mods included, should load up.
@thebanbehindtheslaughter no, I suppose you won’t. Too bad, because I was excited to be able to use the cannons as air to air weaponry. Guess I’ll try the prox fusing trick.
Beautiful rendition of a classic car.
This one is fairly easy to fly, hover and control. Kind of a rarity around here. It’s a little too easy and stable, IMHO, but it’s not like we have a plethora of real world pilots on site, so I’m sure it’s about the right speed for the majority of players. You do have to pay attention and make positive, but small inputs to land it where you want to. I managed to land on one of the destroyer’s heli pads...first attempt, but it took a little concentration to land it without whacking the main rotor on the superstructure, which, BTW, actually is taller than the aft superstructure itself. I should go try and shwack the convoy next. Fun. Nice work.
+1Nice pylon racer.
If I were to choose the best single build on site, I couldn’t do it...but I would put this in the top 3. Ever. So much thought, so much research, outstanding flight model. I’d do a more complete write up, but I can’t because I’m just simply flabbergasted how good this is. Better than mine. Certainly, there are new SP features which have been made since I originally built mine (blueprints mod, glass, Funky Trees), but even with these. Really, my only two complaints are the fact that it’s horribly laggy, even on my iPhone 8 and it lacks a Mach meter (I broke the code on that one a long time ago). So, it was hard to properly evaluate how much it slows in hard turns (EDIT: It does, probably a little too quickly, but it does, so, good). But, nothing else. Just wish it wasn’t so laggy, it would be my favorite build.
+2@NotSoNormalPioneer all USAF pilots are officers and all officers have to attend a commissioning source, either OTS, if you already have a college/university degree, ROTC, if attending a civilian university, or the U.S. Air Academy. This all happens well prior to pilot training, which happens well prior to even applying to the U-2 program.
- Yes, because you had to unlearn a lot of things you had ingrained from flying other airplanes, like easing forward on the yoke upon touchdown. If you tried that in the U-2, the jet would try and leave the runway.
- The Academy was tough, but hard work paid off. Pilot training was probably the hardest single year of my life. I was lucky to graduate. Relearning how to fly in the U-2 during my interview. But life is a series of challenges that you either overcome or fail while trying.
+12@Numbers yes, it's like landing a giant, heavy, twitchy glider that doesn't want to stop flying. The preferred landing attitude was "slightly tailwheel first", which meant the wing was stalled and not producing lift ("flying") upon touchdown. As for the chase car not being there, there were actually a number of scenarios where that would occur. Most frequently, when making a sharp turn onto the runway (AKA "90 degree run-in"), if you weren't careful, you could spin out in the chase car. What typically followed was a "You're on your own!" call on the radio. But we trained to do "no voice" landings, so we could land the jet fairly well without the chase car, if we had to. I'd, from time to time, fly a practice sortie and request all no voice landings.
+1So, I went there myself and tried entering the US standard color codes. It returned the correct shade, but haven’t figured out how exactly to make it return the hex color codes...any suggestions?
Encycolorpedia?
Totally fictional, so I can’t judge it vs a RL example. But, the flight model is fantastic...if this were a RL aircraft, the test report would call it challenging, yet manageable. All too often, VTOL builds in SP, fictional or replicas are way too difficult to fly. RL VTOL aircraft, such as the Harrier, are challenging to fly and take all the pilot’s concentration to do it right...I know this from several former USMC AV-8 pilots I know, but they’re not impossible to fly, otherwise they’d crash more often than they already do. This one seems right, challenging but not impossible to fly. Nice work!
Pretty good. Build quality is great, it’s very well detailed, the mold lines are right on and it just looks “right”. I would have included the swastica for historical accuracy, but I understand your reticence to do so. Flight model highlights are general performance and turn rate. It is tough to take off, not quite in the same way as RL powerful prop airplanes, but challenging nonetheless. Just keep the tailwheel on the ground and there’s no directional control problems. Would be nice if there was enough authority to lift the tailwheel prior to taking off, but it’s not impossible to control this build. Something to improve is the roll rate. I timed it at 45 deg/sec. The roll rate on my 737 is better than this build and though the Ta-152’s roll rate was a little slower than the shorter winged FW-190 (which had a fantastically good roll rate), it was nonetheless very good, at least comparable to the P-51’s.
+4Some very interesting build techniques employed here. Plus, your paneling work is absolutely perfect. In game, I kept looking at the nacelles, trying to convince myself that it was some new shaped piece I wasn’t aware of, but, no, they’re paneled! Nice work!
Quite nice and engaging for what it is: A simple Sabre build. The guns are kinda OTT...the .50 cals certainly had the rate of fire, but your build’s guns also just shred anything they touch. The .50 cal made a lot of holes, but US pilots wanted more punch, which is why the M39 and eventually M61 cannons were developed (interesting aside on the “Gun Val” Sabres tested with the M39 cannon). Anyway, easy to fly, roll rate is just a bit too slow, but nice, semi-realistic rendition that’s simple, nice work!
+1@KnightOfRen sent.
@KnightOfRen are they and do they? I have yet to see any evidence of them being unfair and doing anything outside the rules. I personally know several of the Mods and do not believe that they willfully disregard the site rules. If you have any proof to the contrary, please let me know.
Well, comparing a temporary or permanent user ban is, IMHO, a fallacy known as “false equivalency”. This is a website, while incarceration or the death penalty IRL is...real life with real consequences. To equate an SP ban to RL isn’t valid. Besides, just follow the website rules. There isn’t anything amoral to the posted rules, so there’s no compelling reason for breaking any of the forum rules. I myself have been around here for nearly 5 years without a single incident. I’ve said some controversial things, but they’ve all been controversial builder opinions, such as “Unlimited Fuel is the Dumbest Thing in SP”...I don’t generally stray into politics, religion, etc., but have no qualms about answering questions put forth because I present my case in a calm, respectful manner and in a way that adheres to the rules. Your second position, that Mods should consider the point total (relative fame) of a particular user prior to issuing a ban is essentially an argument that equal justice should not be applied equally. This, from a moral standpoint is wrong. No man or user ought to be above the law. If the rules are not applied equally, then the rules are compromised. Consider this: If two users, one with 27K points (me) and a second with 6,483 points (you) say exactly the same thing, but you’re banned, while I am not...would that be fair? Who decides what level deserves what reduction in sentence? The Mods? You yourself are complaining that you don’t trust the Mods to administer fairly, so why would you assume the Mods would make these more complex and morally ambiguous decisions in accordance with how you see things?
+5I don’t know what you’re doing on your builds, but they look really great. Some builds look unrealistic and cartoony, not yours.
+1Hits: Build quality and details. Camo job. You really captured the often missed details here, AB shape, spoilers, custom landing gear and camo job is especially noteworthy. It seems a lot of research and care went into this build. Next time, you could use the triangle method of wing building, which would allow a thicker root and thinner tip.
+5Misses: High acceleration, flaps on trim/no dedicated trim, bobbing when pulling back. Solutions to these are 1. Using drag reduction techniques, 2. Learn to incorporate trim into your builds, like almost every RL jet ever built. 3. “DamperMultiplier=10000” on your stab rotators. Nice overall, especially for your experience. Keep up the research and attention to detail, as well as learning SP building tricks and techniques and you’ll be platinum in no time.
@ChrisPy NP. Can write something more extensive later today.
Definitions are important. The Wright Brothers were certainly not the only people who invented the concepts, pieces and parts required for an “airplane”. But they were the ones to first incorporate them and build the first successful heavier than air manned aircraft capable of controlled, powered, sustained flight. Santos-Dumont certainly was close to doing so in December of 1903, as was Samuel Langley. Santos-Dumont achieved the same feat independently, but not until 1906. It has to be understood, though, that media was not as widely disseminated or pervasive as it is today, so if SD...and the entire nation of Brazil (Brasil!)...doubted the WBs’ achievement, it’s understandable. Samuel Langley was U.S. government sponsored and also close to success in late 1903, but missed when his “Aerodrome” came off its houseboat-mounted launching mechanism/catapult and went straight into the Potomac River, along with its unfortunate pilot, Charles Manley (who was also the chief engineer and survived). Langley’s engine was much more powerful than the WB engine, but the Aerodrome’s control system and structure was lacking. None other than the Smithsonian Institute sponsored Langley’s subsequent effort to rework the Aerodrome and then fly it in 1914 in an attempt to claim that Langley had first invented the successful airplane, but, clearly, the WBs had already done so and aircraft were far more advanced and developed by 1914. Note that the term “heavier than air manned aircraft capable of controlled, powered, sustained flight” is very specific...we are not talking about lighter than air balloons or dirigibles, gliders or (essentially unmanned, uncontrolled) model aircraft, all of which had flown a long time prior to 17 December, 1903. However, to make the airplane a useful invention, all of these features had to be incorporated together and lead the way for today’s aircraft. That is what is meant by “inventing the airplane”.
+3@AsteroidAsteroidTheBook I will know when I start, perhaps an A-4?
@MrADS yes, agree the drag model is imperfect, perhaps if we get an SP2 that will get a fix. The comment on the wing area is about how SP calculates wing area vs RL. IRL, an aircraft’s published wing area almost always only includes the wing area for the main wing(s), it hardly ever includes the tail surface(s). This may be due to the fact that a conventional horizontal stabilizer actually pushes down to keep the nose up on an inherently stable design. The FW was an inherently stable design, as were all successful aircraft prior to the advent of flight control computers. Canard aircraft wing area may be the exception as the canard actually lifts the nose of an aircraft and contributes to total lift, but I am not 100% certain as I haven’t dealt much with canard designs. SP, however, adds the area of ALL the wing surfaces, including the tail, on the build to arrive at the total wing area that you see in the build screen and the published post and all wing surfaces, including the tail, lift up...there’s no way to invert the lift in SP on a curved or SS airfoil (I understand why this was designed this way, but it’s not true to life). This is misleading as when a builder builds to match the RL wing area, builders who do not understand this difference usually will build undersized main wings, as you have here. The FW’s wing area is around 196 sq ft, that’s only for the main wing; however, your published wing area here is only 145 sq ft, and that number includes all the wing surfaces present in your build...main wing, horizontal and vertical stabilizer and significantly less wing area than the RL plane. The good news is that the SP model is pretty good at replicating an aircraft’s RL behavior if you ensure the main wing area (minus the tail surfaces) matches the RL wing area and if the airfoil shape is similar to the RL airfoil (here, I’d use the semi-symmetrical wing).
Very nice, especially for being so low on the part count. Roll rate and speed is right on with the historical performance, both of which were hallmarks of the RL plane, so good focus emulating those features. Turn performance is a little sluggish, IMHO, however, I haven’t put it on the Dev console to see the numbers...just my impression flying it on my iPhone. And it doesn’t lose any speed on the turns, probably a result of having the drag centered on a few parts. But SP is weird with how the program reacts when reducing drag. The lack of trim is something I would have done differently and the stall speed is really high, as high as an F-100. Remember that SP adds the wing area of the tail, not just the main wing, as the wing area numbers you’ll find will reflect. But, quite an engaging build of a great subject, nice work and Spotlight!
This is very fun to fly, in a frustrating way. Easy to start flying, it takes a deft hand to hover it well and transition to forward flight is tricky to achieve without losing control. But, it’s fun and challenging enough to hold my attention. Nice build, I like it.
@Hedero, maybe. It’s a lot of work and I haven’t started anything lately, so it’ll take awhile even if I started today. But I do occasionally think about what jet I would build next, a B-47, an A-4, an F-104 or a B-52 are all on the top of my potentials list.
+1@F104Deathtrap it’s only age and experience, my friend, age and experience. But, thank you for your confidence.
+2Yes. But be prepared for a minimum of Upvotes, regardless of how good it may be. Or how good you think it is, as every artist loves their art. The lack of Upvotes is often simply a case of the number of followers you have and it takes time to gather a following. But the path forward requires uploading your creations, so go for it!
+2@AsteroidAsteroidTheBook surely, but I don’t think the Mods would remove for this. But, we’ll move on and I understand your trepidation surrounding this topic. I simply ask you to think it over and consider the issue moving forward, whether or not you agree or disagree. Nice twin boom and if you tag me on an unlisted, I can probably help to resolve your intake blending issues.
@AsteroidAsteroidTheBook yeah, like me. Screw PC culture, it’s an abomination and runs directly counter to free speech. It’s the idea that one must be polite, or suffer the consequences. Well, as a free human being, I should be able to express my thoughts and you should be individually free to disagree with me. In the past, before this stupid idea of Political Correctness evolved, the tend was to generally allow free thought, speech and expression. Those you disagreed with, you either told them so, or you simply avoided them. This was in line with “keeping polite company”. If someone decided to espouse controversial/reprehensible ideas, we simply disagreed and society moved on. Now, we shame them for simply thinking the “wrong” thing, no debate, no discussion. The kicker is that the idea of wrong or right is established by only one side with a single opinion and pushed on the rest of this with the mandate to “agree or die”. Disagreeing with things because they run counter to thousands of years of society, run counter to religious dictates, personal mores or standards or simply logic doesn’t necessarily make someone evil, it simply is a disagreement over an issue. A hallmark of a vibrant and just society is the free expression, exchange and debate of ideas in search of the truth. Ever heard “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?”. That’s no longer the mantra of today’s society and we are losing more freedom daily, a loss of free thought. And don’t kid yourself, this isn’t about truth...if so, PC culture wouldn’t seek to upend every standard or idea, but it does. It’s about power. As Pontius Pilate said: “What is truth?” What he meant is: “Who cares what the right thing is, as long as I have the power.”
+2@UltraLight what you’re describing is the perception of what the current generation thinks of the older people they call “boomers”, but it’s not the entire meaning of the term. The original term means someone of the “baby boomer” generation, those who were born during the baby boom that followed when returning service members started families after WWII. Bill Clinton is a baby boomer, as is Bill Gates and Madonna. The post is titled “Ok boomer”, as in an exasperated response to an older person, which I referenced by pointing out that the M55 isn’t really an aircraft of the “boomer” generation; the aircraft of that generation are aircraft such as the F-80, F-86, Super Constellation, Hawker Hunter, MiG-15...the M55 came about around 25 years after that generation of aircraft and therefore is not part of the “boomers’” generation of aircraft.
Well, wouldn’t call this a “Boomer” build. It carriers neither bombs nor is it a design that cam immediately after the Second World War. BTW, there are better/smoother techniques for blending those intakes into the fuselage.
@F89Scorpian not quite. It wasn’t the difference in the sizes of the target, the F6F being somewhat smaller than a bomber. It’s nearly impossible to hit either a bomber or fighter sized target with unguided rockets, unless you have some sort of computer assisted aiming. And that F6F wasn’t maneuvering, it was reportedly in a gentle turn during the attempted engagement. And having flown many hours of form, it’s actually easier to close on another aircraft if it’s in a gentle turn. There was a problem with the F-89s’ targeting system and they didn’t even have gunsights, which had been removed due to the targeting upgrade, so the task was impossible. Perhaps if their systems were working as advertised they could have accomplished the task. But even with fully operational systems, guided missiles are more effective, which explains why unguided rockets have fallen out of favor, despite having been used extensively on a number of aircraft, including this one and the ones you mention, in addition to the F-102 and the CF-100.
@Hedero sadly, no longer. Retired from active duty.
@Hedero yes, it’s nice. If I could Spotlight you, I would, but you have many more points than I do. I’ve been flying for more than 30 years, many different aircraft. That gives me a little experience with these things.
@KangaKangaTheRoo I’ve already incorporated the decreased supersonic maneuverability feature into both my Su-11 and my F-20. But the control surfaces move fully, as they did IRL.
+1@KangaKangaTheRoo the supersonic maneuverability issue isn’t unique to the Hun, it’s a consequence of the localized shockwave effects blanking control surfaces. The all moving horizontal slab, vice elevator at the back of a horizontal stab, is due to this issue. Most supersonic aircraft experience this phenomenon.
+1@KangaKangaTheRoo the definition of “irreversible” in this context is that they would always move through their entire range. No, the Hun didn’t have the problem, at least not as you’re describing it.
+1@KangaKangaTheRoo describe this “locked control surfaces” problem with the F-100? The Hun had a few problems, many of which were due to the supersonic regime, which was new to an operational fighter and most of which were sorted out in the first few years of operation. There was inertia coupling, which killed George Welch during testing, and which led to the larger vertical stab, the high landing speed and a tendency to do the dreaded “Sabre Dance”, partially due to the lack of flaps on the A model jet, which killed many young fighter pilots. There was also structural problems which required bracing to fix, but I’m completely unfamiliar of a tendency for the flight controls to “lock up” in flight. The Hun had hydraulically operated, irreversible flight controls, as do most jets like this, which makes me doubt some aerodynamic phenomenon would lead to locked controls...do you have more details of what you’re describing?
+1Not bad, actually pretty good...and I can say that having built a Hun myself. Certainly looks the part and have to agree, like the clean look myself, though I prefer those two drop tanks, which were almost always present on the bird.
Looks great and the flight model is very, very good. Yeah, the flap falling off is annoying, but easily fixed, see link below. If you try and force it off the runway too early (before about 210 KIAS), it will stall and if you fly too slow on landing (anything below 230 KIAS), it will mush in, just like the RL jet would. It accelerates sufficiently quickly, the top speeds are in the ballpark, both high and low altitude, the turn performance is about right. Far too many SP players think the 104 didn’t turn. It did, but at very high speeds which made for a huge turn circle. It didn’t pull much G slow, which is why 104 pilots flew fast, fast, fast, all the time. The MiG-21 was a better all around dog fighter because it did have turn capability at lower speeds than the 104, though it too bled speed quickly in hard turns due to the delta wing. I also like that this build will decelerate if you raise the nose high. That’s a detail other builders miss when they crank the power on the engine. Nice work. Wish I could Spotlight because this really is one of the superior F-104s on the site.
+5Flies very nicely!
Well, it’s about 5x heavier and 50% larger than the RL airplane, but the build itself looks really nice and the customization, while not original to the RL lane, captures the whole customized sport plane vibe. Also flies fairly well.
+1You did the one thing right that almost everyone gets wrong with the Hornet: the landing gear is sufficiently beefy, just like the real jet. It would have been great if you could have had a real cockpit view as it’s almost impossible to land on the boat without it!
+1@KnightOfRen well, that’s pretty cool. I should remaster this thing...
+1Pretty good, actually. Acceleration , turning and roll performance from my brief flight on mobile all seem realistic. Yup, cannons are difficult to impossible to use air to air...SP’s limitation, not your fault, though I do understand there is a workaround. Construction is good, nice use of triangles and intakes for the wings. Nice build, good flight model.
+1@Daisghosh123 easy fix: Download the build, the interface will display the warning message that the build requires mod(s), then hit the “back” arrow in the bottom left of the construction screen, you’ll see the default starting point (the cockpit with the two blocks stuck to the bottom), then hit the “forward” button and the build, without the mods included, should load up.
+1This is one of my favorite flying builds of all time.
It’s an F-84F.
Easy to fly, probably too easy, but fun nonetheless.
@thebanbehindtheslaughter no, I suppose you won’t. Too bad, because I was excited to be able to use the cannons as air to air weaponry. Guess I’ll try the prox fusing trick.