@thebanbehindtheslaughter wow, just when I thought you might have had me and figured out something I didn’t already know. BTW, an unlisted won’t get removed by the Mods. Only public posts. So, pass me the unlisted link.
@thebanbehindtheslaughter it’s not. And I’m platinum, I’ve tried to do so countless times, so trust my experience. I had this exact same conversation with another player who asked me to eval his P-51 (unfortunately can’t remember whom). He had cannons on it and when I told him the cannon issue, he changed back to the normal wing guns when he figured out I was correct. It’s a game limitation on how the cannon round works in game. Still don’t believe me? I invoke @BogdanX to weigh in on this.
@thebanbehindtheslaughter well, what you stated earlier was that “explosive rounds and armor penetration rounds should not be available on wing guns”. Explosive rounds are exactly what makes a cannon a cannon, as opposed to a machine gun, which has non-explosive rounds. As for the aiming reticle, you’re correct, it’s adequate, especially with the lead computation incorporated into the game within the past year. But, I guarantee that, no matter the sight you’re using, you will never be able to hit an airborne target using the SP cannon. Guaranteed...try it. First, take a machine gun, either the wing gun or “mini gun”, try and hit an airborne target. Can be done with a little practice, but tough. Then try to do the same with the stock cannon (no proximity fuse). Impossible. This may all be OBE, given the proximity fuse modification, so why are we even arguing the point?
@thebanbehindtheslaughter sorry, unclear as to what you mean by “ruin the purpose of cannons”. As for the proximity fuse, haven’t tried it yet, perhaps I should.
@thebanbehindtheslaughter why not? The German MG151/15, MG151/20 were both wing mounted cannons and armed the FW-190 among others, as was the Hispano 20 mm cannon, which was wing mounted and armed a number of RAF fighters, including the Spitfire and Hurricane, among others. The Japanese also widely employed 20 mm wing mounted cannons. The USAAF notably skewed towards .50 cal M.G.s, but most other combatants used a number of wing mounted cannons, with explosive shells, due to the fact that a single cannon round could bring down an aircraft, while a single machine gun round didn’t have as much effect. So much so, that nearly every airborne gun these days is a true cannon, including the U.S. M61, the Soviet/Russian GSh-23 and the German/Euro Mauser. As for armor piercing rounds, I cannot think of a single type of aircraft ammo that ISN’T armor piercing to various extents. They’re not sabot rounds, as an MBT would carry, but aircraft rounds, cannon and even the famed .50 cal, are not generally frangible and are generally optimized for armor penetration. SP’s problem with cannon is that it is almost impossible to hit an airborne target, the individual shell needs to actually contact the frame of the build in order to explode and cause damage. Against land targets, the cannon is very effective as the round will contact the “ground”, explode and create damage to objects within a certain radius, much the same way as a bomb works. It is way, way, way easier to hit an airborne target in SP with M.G. rounds. Try it, you’ll see.
@UsernameTH5 hey, nice Canberra, looks great, except your stars and bars insignia is off: incorrect proportions with lopsided stars. I built these for players like you, use what you want, credit not necessary.
@MrEarth I’ll have to try your speed brakes with G trick; I’ve used speed brakes with AoA, but your technique works really well. I also forgot to say that this build certainly looks great, nice aesthetics, I can see you had to make some tough choices wrt the livery, making it presentable without adding another hundred parts. Have to say, nice work with this.
Nice build, I really like it. And I especially like the part count, which is a huge improvement over other F-20 builds, BTW. The handling is realistic, I like the load out, especially the Slammers. Fun to fly, great work!
Ok, flight tested this thing. Really, given the interesting flight model, it deserves more than a cursory look. Fuel, weights, wing loading are all in the ballpark, very nice and is almost always the precursor to a realistic flight model. Acceleration on takeoff is realistic, one thing I immediately noticed is there isn’t enough trim authority, without flaps extended, to keep the nose from dropping at low speeds (anything slower than 400 knots), where trim is really needed to control the jet. IRL, this jet, as almost all aircraft, had plenty of trim authority up to the stall. When going vertical, it’s nice to see that the jet actually slows, unlike most builds. IRL, this jet had about a .6:1 thrust to weight ratio, so the slowdown could be a lot faster, but at least it doesn’t accelerate going straight up. As for the way the trim is setup, one benefit was that I actually could fly straight and level hands off, as I could make minute trim adjustments...the stability is very good with this one, nice. The turn performance is also mostly realistic, with a good slowdown when pulling a lot of G. I didn’t take the build apart to get a sense of how you modeled this, but I suspect you may have a G limiter built in somewhere, given Mikoyanster’s limitation of 7.5 Gs. This isn’t totally realistic, but here, it works. The slats seem connected to airspeed only...? IRL, slat programs are more complex on fighters, but I prefer to connect slats to AoA as even the Me-109 was set up for slat deployment when the boundary layer separated from the wing at high AoA. Weapons are nice, though the Sidewinders fly on for the rails way faster than IRL (that’s saying a lot as IRL, Sidewinders accelerate very quickly). Speed performance is in the ballpark...I have the same struggles modeling fast speeds at SL and realistic speeds at altitude. I finally resorted to an engine thrust reduction program for my builds, but the programming could be better. But it’s the only way I know of achieving the desired effect. The biggest quirk with this build is the adverse roll at stall...that can be the case IRL, but with the spoilers, I would think the rolloff at stall to be in the direction of the deployed spoiler. Also, the stall occurs at really fast speeds, way faster than I would expect IRL. I would have died flying this jet. I experienced the rolloff at IAS as high as 265 knots in a turn (about 30 degrees of bank) and as high as 200 KIAS on straight and level final, fully
Looks good, the AB is impressively done, though similar setups have been used on other builds to similar effect. The presentation is very good, but the big miss IMHO is the post’s title...should have used the full “Grumman F-11A Tiger” instead of the abbreviated “F-11A”, which means...nothing to most people around here, there are probably a hundred fictional posts titled as some variation of “F-11”. But “Grumman” and “Tiger” are evocative of an earlier time when the Grumman “Ironworks” build tough warplanes flown by even tougher men. Anyway, can’t wait to wring this one out and see if the flight model is as good as the aesthetics. Congrats on a 100+ upvote build and a third feature, nice work!
A jet’s G limit isn’t the ultimate Gs that a jet—especially a fighter type aircraft—can pull. It’s actually a structural limit that beyond which, a jet may suffer damage, whether that’s deformation or structural failure. A jet almost always has the capability, especially in high subsonic flight regimes, to exceed the G limit and it’s often done accidentally. I do commend your intent to make this a realistic challenge, but be aware that jets do frequently exceed their advertised G limitations. Now as for the “rolling G” limit, what that means is usually a jet’s published vertical G limitation is lower while rolling...ie, the T-38’s published max G limit for symmetrical flight was 7.2 Gs (<1000 lbs of fuel or less remaining) while if the jet was in any rate of roll, ie, in “unsymmetrical flight” that G limit was only 5 Gs. That’s why pilots of fighters generally learn to first unload to 1 G, roll to set the proper lift vector, then pull back. Rolling G is therefore not some sort of lateral G limitation that limits the jet’s roll rate. In fact, a jet’s max roll rate is best described in degrees per second and does generally vary with flight regime. Any jet’s max roll rate is usually pretty easy to find with a quick Google search, in order to meet your intent, I would advise that any entrant’s roll rate is no more than the RL maximum roll rate, plus or minus a few degrees.
@ReinMcDeer yeah, I get it, that’s why I build for joystick players, more control. So, my explanation would be the opposite of yours...”yeah, the roll is twitchy, but it’s easily controlled with a joystick.” But I understand the rotator mod to give it better roll. I can tune nearly any build to fly differently, which is one cool thing about this game, but I do judge on what the builder presents to the community and this isn’t at all bad, in fact, it’s fairly fun. Unfortunately, building for keyboards tends to “dumbs down” builds, but a builder does have to pick his poison, doesn’t he?
@EngineerOtaku this thing rolls about 120-150 degrees per second, you’re correct, too slow. Online sources cite 180-270 degrees/sec roll rate for the Flanker. Looks good, though. And it’s relatively simple, which is nice for players looking for something quick and simple. Nice balance of form and function, but, yeah, next time, make the roll snappier, like the real jet and more in line with the amped up flight performance of the rest of this build’s flight mod.
FT is fairly easy, I’m sure you could figure out a good stability equation. It could be something as easy as a rotator with a movement associated with an output =“-angle of attack*pitchrate” or something similar may work.
Post an unlisted build with a link and tag someone else to take a look at it. I’d probably be able to tell you what’s happening in about 3 mins if I could test fly it.
Well, that’s easy, just change the input on the stock rudder surface to “Roll” and invert, if required, so that the rudder deflects whenever you initiate a turn with the aileron. However, IRL, the rudder typically is a separate control surface, the Ercoupe being a notable exception, manipulated by the pilot as required. For most turns, the pilot will input rudder in the direction of the turn due to an effect known as “adverse yaw”, in which the aileron which deflects down to lift the wing for the turn will produce more drag due to the increased lift produced and will attempt to yaw the aircraft away from the direction of the turn. To counteract this, the pilot will typically input pro-turn rudder when deflecting the ailerons to turn. Even in WT, if operating in the most realistic mode, aircraft will fly this way. You’re probably flying in an arcade or simplified mode, designed for non-flyers or mouse and keyboard gamers, who don’t know how to fly.
@rexrexThezion here, it’s a combination of the relatively high wing loading and the symmetric airfoil. You can emulate the idea, but it’s tricky to do it consistently in SP. In this case, it’s just the flight dynamics, in other cases I’ve wanted to replicate the effect, I’ve had to resort to mounting the two wings on rotators which act counter aileron input when exceeding a certain AoA.
So, this one is highly similar to my Fishpot, so it’s interesting to see the build choices made by another good builder. Would love the opportunity to go over several of these differences and even do a direct comparison between our builds.
I have a suggestion: Find some of your favorite non-stock builds from users you like and do a follow up post highlighting those planes, I think people would really like that. Nice work, pretty screenshots.
I like this build a lot. Like the RL bird, it’s very stable at high speeds and low altitude and seems free of any major flying quality vices...at least that’s what I’ve read regarding how their pilots viewed the Su-7/17/22 family. Flight model is pretty good on this one, though I’m sure it would bleed energy a lot more quickly in high G turns than your model does, meh, minor issue that has more to do with the overall SP model than this particular build, I’m sure. But the ability to fly low and fast is what makes this fun, I also like the cockpit view and ejection seat work. Overall, quite nice.
Ah...a Brit Draken! Very fast at altitude, just as fast as an F-106, the “Ultimate Interceptor”, easy enough to land on the boat, though it does help to have the speedbrakes locked out in on approach as it really likes to accelerate given the least bit power input.
So, I love a good Phantom, this one certainly looks the part, though the flight model is much more accurate on your Marauder. I have to say you’ve really improved your SP skills in the last couple of months; have you considered using the triangle and intake technique for building wings?
@SparkySparkyTheFiretruck well, the B-26 was a “hot ship”. Very high (for the time) wing loading demanded that it be flown at high speeds, higher than what her minimally trained crews were used to from prior designs, particularly during takeoff and landing, where if you get slow, you stall without room to recover. If you haven’t been taught to be very aware of and control your airspeed on final (and it wasn’t as much a big deal as it was with this airplane), the consequences would be fatal. Added to this, the short wing, small rudder and powerful engines made Vmca quite high and the consequences of getting slow fatal, as in rolling the airplane over on its back, in a single engine situation. Anyway, most of the flaws were corrected through better training, a longer wing and larger empennage and the B-26 recovered from being a “Widowmaker” to having the lowest USAAF loss rate in Europe. But, the lack of pitch trim was not a problem on this airplane, as it isn’t on nearly every airplane...the lack of YAW trim, though, is another story. With that small rudder, especially the initial design, having the rudder authority...much less the trim authority...to control the airplane must have been a workout for the leg pushing the correct rudder pedal almost to the floor and holding it there until a safe landing.
Very good build, what makes it even better is that the Marauder is little built or appreciated in the SP community, and this is a great example. Performance is very historically accurate, pitch and roll control response is very appropriate, not too fast nor too slow. Acceleration and takeoff performance is very good. It does need more nose up trim authority, at 230 mph with full nose up trim, still needs a little back stick pressure to stay level. Should be able to fly level, trimmed up, hands off. It’s better with full flaps, but it assumes a weirdly nose up attitude in level flight or on approach path with flaps down. Not sure the real life airplane flew that nose high. But speeds are realistic, nothing wildly unrealistic and it generally flies like a RL airplane. Nice. Weapons are interesting, I always like the bomber builds, they’re fun. This one is also very fun to fly around. I hit the Beast and managed not to get shot down!
@AzureCorp did I mention 1,000 hrs somewhere? I looked everywhere on this post and I didn’t see where I said that. I have more than 4,000 hrs TT, not sim time, real life flying time in a variety of real aircraft.
@Wallaby sure, it’s more than 2,000, but not unreasonable. Though, at that threshold, I’m probably the only one here that falls into the “experienced” category.
Just checked with a fellow pilot friend of mine who I am guessing has the most hours of anyone I know...he’s been flying for around 40 years. He has around 9,800 hrs. There certainly are lifelong airline pilots I know of who have 25,000 hrs, but certainly any pilot who’s spent an extended time flying in the military, even if they’d flown airlines after they retired from the military (as I have), 10,000 hrs is a fairly high threshold.
Hmmm. I’d lower the threshold for the “experienced” category to anyone with more than 2,000 hrs TT. Ten thousand hours is A LOT. It would take an airline pilot about 15 yrs to get that many hours (FAA limit is 1,000 hrs a year) and I could probably count the number of USAF pilots with more than 10,000 hrs on one hand and none of those guys are flying fighters.
Well, I really like it, but I wonder if I found an SP glitch: I advance the throttle, the engines accelerate, but the plane doesn’t move at all. I adjust the VTOL, which you’ve programmed for the flaps, so that doesn’t change the pitch...any tips on how to get this to move?
Fairly faithful recreation of the real thing. These fighters, along with some Caproni bombers, actually participated in some raids on Britain during the WWII...ya know, fascists helping fascists, back when we truly knew what “fascist” meant...any way Wing Commander Robert Stanford Tuck participated in that aerial engagement flying (as I remember) a Hurricane. You can find a contemporary account of the battle if you search “Italian Raiders Hurricaned!” on YouTube. I didn’t post the direct link here because the video is definitely not PC. But it’s an interesting look into the mind of the wartime British populace who were fighting for their lives against an evil movement. The Fiats were highly maneuverable, but not fast and didn’t absorb damage that well and quite a few were shot down. An odd little battle in a huge war. Though I might have done a couple of things differently here, I like this build a lot and am surprised it’s been posted for over an hour with no upvotes until I came along. I’d Spotlight you, but you have twice the points that I do!
@MotorManiac no, not the Voodoo, all the guys who flew that one are OLD...but I do have plenty of experience in airplanes with high wing loading that were designed to fly like the Voodoo.
@Hedero that’s actually not that surprising, the F-5 and MiG-21 were very similar performers, which is why the U.S. uses the F-5 as an adversary simulator to this day. The F-20 was a better performer, thanks to the much better engine with more thrust, but it wasn’t light years ahead of the MiG in terms of sheer performance numbers. But the weapons systems, cockpit displays and pilot integration was better than the MiG. That aspect is much more difficult to capture in SP, but it does make sense you were able to tweak the flying performance. It’s also gratifying in that I was able to at least land in the same performance ballpark as the RL jet.
Bravo! Very nice build...first of all, it’s beautiful. The flight model is great, slow acceleration, appropriate roll rate, it loses energy in the turn. It actually flies as I understand those earlier jets flew, marginal excess power, bolters were dangerous due to slow engine acceleration, landings were doable, but dangerous if you screwed them up. Minor, minor complaints...the engine spool up is perhaps a bit slow (would have to read up on the jet to be sure) and landing gear extension should result in increased drag; but overall, great job!
Looks good, good cockpit view and it flies relatively well. Roll rate, takeoff and landing characteristics and lightness/responsiveness of controls (as well as that can be simulated in SP) are all very well done. For next time, however: Turn rate is way too high. I have not evaluated G capability using the dev console, but this build is probably pulling 18-30 Gs in the turn. Energy loss in the turn itself is appropriate, but G capability is way too high; no manned aircraft traveling at 200 knots can turn inside the width of the Wright Island Airport, which is probably 150’ wide, even given the maneuvering reserve built into most aircraft Otherwise, very good build and very fun to fly.
@thebanbehindtheslaughter wow, just when I thought you might have had me and figured out something I didn’t already know. BTW, an unlisted won’t get removed by the Mods. Only public posts. So, pass me the unlisted link.
@thebanbehindtheslaughter you do??? Really? Give me a link to the build you’re using and I’ll evaluate it.
@thebanbehindtheslaughter it’s not. And I’m platinum, I’ve tried to do so countless times, so trust my experience. I had this exact same conversation with another player who asked me to eval his P-51 (unfortunately can’t remember whom). He had cannons on it and when I told him the cannon issue, he changed back to the normal wing guns when he figured out I was correct. It’s a game limitation on how the cannon round works in game. Still don’t believe me? I invoke @BogdanX to weigh in on this.
@thebanbehindtheslaughter it’s not. And I know you haven’t tried to do it because you don’t believe me. Try it.
@thebanbehindtheslaughter well, what you stated earlier was that “explosive rounds and armor penetration rounds should not be available on wing guns”. Explosive rounds are exactly what makes a cannon a cannon, as opposed to a machine gun, which has non-explosive rounds. As for the aiming reticle, you’re correct, it’s adequate, especially with the lead computation incorporated into the game within the past year. But, I guarantee that, no matter the sight you’re using, you will never be able to hit an airborne target using the SP cannon. Guaranteed...try it. First, take a machine gun, either the wing gun or “mini gun”, try and hit an airborne target. Can be done with a little practice, but tough. Then try to do the same with the stock cannon (no proximity fuse). Impossible. This may all be OBE, given the proximity fuse modification, so why are we even arguing the point?
@thebanbehindtheslaughter sorry, unclear as to what you mean by “ruin the purpose of cannons”. As for the proximity fuse, haven’t tried it yet, perhaps I should.
@thebanbehindtheslaughter why not? The German MG151/15, MG151/20 were both wing mounted cannons and armed the FW-190 among others, as was the Hispano 20 mm cannon, which was wing mounted and armed a number of RAF fighters, including the Spitfire and Hurricane, among others. The Japanese also widely employed 20 mm wing mounted cannons. The USAAF notably skewed towards .50 cal M.G.s, but most other combatants used a number of wing mounted cannons, with explosive shells, due to the fact that a single cannon round could bring down an aircraft, while a single machine gun round didn’t have as much effect. So much so, that nearly every airborne gun these days is a true cannon, including the U.S. M61, the Soviet/Russian GSh-23 and the German/Euro Mauser. As for armor piercing rounds, I cannot think of a single type of aircraft ammo that ISN’T armor piercing to various extents. They’re not sabot rounds, as an MBT would carry, but aircraft rounds, cannon and even the famed .50 cal, are not generally frangible and are generally optimized for armor penetration. SP’s problem with cannon is that it is almost impossible to hit an airborne target, the individual shell needs to actually contact the frame of the build in order to explode and cause damage. Against land targets, the cannon is very effective as the round will contact the “ground”, explode and create damage to objects within a certain radius, much the same way as a bomb works. It is way, way, way easier to hit an airborne target in SP with M.G. rounds. Try it, you’ll see.
@UsernameTH5 hey, nice Canberra, looks great, except your stars and bars insignia is off: incorrect proportions with lopsided stars. I built these for players like you, use what you want, credit not necessary.
@MrEarth I’ll have to try your speed brakes with G trick; I’ve used speed brakes with AoA, but your technique works really well. I also forgot to say that this build certainly looks great, nice aesthetics, I can see you had to make some tough choices wrt the livery, making it presentable without adding another hundred parts. Have to say, nice work with this.
@EngineerOtaku hah, you’re right! Not sure what the nickname was for the AIM-7s, but they work here really well!
Nice build, I really like it. And I especially like the part count, which is a huge improvement over other F-20 builds, BTW. The handling is realistic, I like the load out, especially the Slammers. Fun to fly, great work!
+1Ok, flight tested this thing. Really, given the interesting flight model, it deserves more than a cursory look. Fuel, weights, wing loading are all in the ballpark, very nice and is almost always the precursor to a realistic flight model. Acceleration on takeoff is realistic, one thing I immediately noticed is there isn’t enough trim authority, without flaps extended, to keep the nose from dropping at low speeds (anything slower than 400 knots), where trim is really needed to control the jet. IRL, this jet, as almost all aircraft, had plenty of trim authority up to the stall. When going vertical, it’s nice to see that the jet actually slows, unlike most builds. IRL, this jet had about a .6:1 thrust to weight ratio, so the slowdown could be a lot faster, but at least it doesn’t accelerate going straight up. As for the way the trim is setup, one benefit was that I actually could fly straight and level hands off, as I could make minute trim adjustments...the stability is very good with this one, nice. The turn performance is also mostly realistic, with a good slowdown when pulling a lot of G. I didn’t take the build apart to get a sense of how you modeled this, but I suspect you may have a G limiter built in somewhere, given Mikoyanster’s limitation of 7.5 Gs. This isn’t totally realistic, but here, it works. The slats seem connected to airspeed only...? IRL, slat programs are more complex on fighters, but I prefer to connect slats to AoA as even the Me-109 was set up for slat deployment when the boundary layer separated from the wing at high AoA. Weapons are nice, though the Sidewinders fly on for the rails way faster than IRL (that’s saying a lot as IRL, Sidewinders accelerate very quickly). Speed performance is in the ballpark...I have the same struggles modeling fast speeds at SL and realistic speeds at altitude. I finally resorted to an engine thrust reduction program for my builds, but the programming could be better. But it’s the only way I know of achieving the desired effect. The biggest quirk with this build is the adverse roll at stall...that can be the case IRL, but with the spoilers, I would think the rolloff at stall to be in the direction of the deployed spoiler. Also, the stall occurs at really fast speeds, way faster than I would expect IRL. I would have died flying this jet. I experienced the rolloff at IAS as high as 265 knots in a turn (about 30 degrees of bank) and as high as 200 KIAS on straight and level final, fully
+6Looks good, the AB is impressively done, though similar setups have been used on other builds to similar effect. The presentation is very good, but the big miss IMHO is the post’s title...should have used the full “Grumman F-11A Tiger” instead of the abbreviated “F-11A”, which means...nothing to most people around here, there are probably a hundred fictional posts titled as some variation of “F-11”. But “Grumman” and “Tiger” are evocative of an earlier time when the Grumman “Ironworks” build tough warplanes flown by even tougher men. Anyway, can’t wait to wring this one out and see if the flight model is as good as the aesthetics. Congrats on a 100+ upvote build and a third feature, nice work!
+3A jet’s G limit isn’t the ultimate Gs that a jet—especially a fighter type aircraft—can pull. It’s actually a structural limit that beyond which, a jet may suffer damage, whether that’s deformation or structural failure. A jet almost always has the capability, especially in high subsonic flight regimes, to exceed the G limit and it’s often done accidentally. I do commend your intent to make this a realistic challenge, but be aware that jets do frequently exceed their advertised G limitations. Now as for the “rolling G” limit, what that means is usually a jet’s published vertical G limitation is lower while rolling...ie, the T-38’s published max G limit for symmetrical flight was 7.2 Gs (<1000 lbs of fuel or less remaining) while if the jet was in any rate of roll, ie, in “unsymmetrical flight” that G limit was only 5 Gs. That’s why pilots of fighters generally learn to first unload to 1 G, roll to set the proper lift vector, then pull back. Rolling G is therefore not some sort of lateral G limitation that limits the jet’s roll rate. In fact, a jet’s max roll rate is best described in degrees per second and does generally vary with flight regime. Any jet’s max roll rate is usually pretty easy to find with a quick Google search, in order to meet your intent, I would advise that any entrant’s roll rate is no more than the RL maximum roll rate, plus or minus a few degrees.
+6@ReinMcDeer yeah, I get it, that’s why I build for joystick players, more control. So, my explanation would be the opposite of yours...”yeah, the roll is twitchy, but it’s easily controlled with a joystick.” But I understand the rotator mod to give it better roll. I can tune nearly any build to fly differently, which is one cool thing about this game, but I do judge on what the builder presents to the community and this isn’t at all bad, in fact, it’s fairly fun. Unfortunately, building for keyboards tends to “dumbs down” builds, but a builder does have to pick his poison, doesn’t he?
@EngineerOtaku this thing rolls about 120-150 degrees per second, you’re correct, too slow. Online sources cite 180-270 degrees/sec roll rate for the Flanker. Looks good, though. And it’s relatively simple, which is nice for players looking for something quick and simple. Nice balance of form and function, but, yeah, next time, make the roll snappier, like the real jet and more in line with the amped up flight performance of the rest of this build’s flight mod.
+1FT is fairly easy, I’m sure you could figure out a good stability equation. It could be something as easy as a rotator with a movement associated with an output =“-angle of attack*pitchrate” or something similar may work.
Gee...should we create an “Anime” tag???
@KnightOfRen a bit exuberant in your praise?
Post an unlisted build with a link and tag someone else to take a look at it. I’d probably be able to tell you what’s happening in about 3 mins if I could test fly it.
Only 36 upvotes thus far? That’s a crime!
+1@KipoLover123 yup.
Geez, will someone tell me where/how to find the .105 Beta on iOS?
+1Well, that’s easy, just change the input on the stock rudder surface to “Roll” and invert, if required, so that the rudder deflects whenever you initiate a turn with the aileron. However, IRL, the rudder typically is a separate control surface, the Ercoupe being a notable exception, manipulated by the pilot as required. For most turns, the pilot will input rudder in the direction of the turn due to an effect known as “adverse yaw”, in which the aileron which deflects down to lift the wing for the turn will produce more drag due to the increased lift produced and will attempt to yaw the aircraft away from the direction of the turn. To counteract this, the pilot will typically input pro-turn rudder when deflecting the ailerons to turn. Even in WT, if operating in the most realistic mode, aircraft will fly this way. You’re probably flying in an arcade or simplified mode, designed for non-flyers or mouse and keyboard gamers, who don’t know how to fly.
@rexrexThezion here, it’s a combination of the relatively high wing loading and the symmetric airfoil. You can emulate the idea, but it’s tricky to do it consistently in SP. In this case, it’s just the flight dynamics, in other cases I’ve wanted to replicate the effect, I’ve had to resort to mounting the two wings on rotators which act counter aileron input when exceeding a certain AoA.
So, this one is highly similar to my Fishpot, so it’s interesting to see the build choices made by another good builder. Would love the opportunity to go over several of these differences and even do a direct comparison between our builds.
+1Deserves twice the upvotes. Hyper-realistic build, decent flight model, great work.
I have a suggestion: Find some of your favorite non-stock builds from users you like and do a follow up post highlighting those planes, I think people would really like that. Nice work, pretty screenshots.
+1I like this build a lot. Like the RL bird, it’s very stable at high speeds and low altitude and seems free of any major flying quality vices...at least that’s what I’ve read regarding how their pilots viewed the Su-7/17/22 family. Flight model is pretty good on this one, though I’m sure it would bleed energy a lot more quickly in high G turns than your model does, meh, minor issue that has more to do with the overall SP model than this particular build, I’m sure. But the ability to fly low and fast is what makes this fun, I also like the cockpit view and ejection seat work. Overall, quite nice.
+1Ah...a Brit Draken! Very fast at altitude, just as fast as an F-106, the “Ultimate Interceptor”, easy enough to land on the boat, though it does help to have the speedbrakes locked out in on approach as it really likes to accelerate given the least bit power input.
So, I love a good Phantom, this one certainly looks the part, though the flight model is much more accurate on your Marauder. I have to say you’ve really improved your SP skills in the last couple of months; have you considered using the triangle and intake technique for building wings?
+1@SparkySparkyTheFiretruck well, the B-26 was a “hot ship”. Very high (for the time) wing loading demanded that it be flown at high speeds, higher than what her minimally trained crews were used to from prior designs, particularly during takeoff and landing, where if you get slow, you stall without room to recover. If you haven’t been taught to be very aware of and control your airspeed on final (and it wasn’t as much a big deal as it was with this airplane), the consequences would be fatal. Added to this, the short wing, small rudder and powerful engines made Vmca quite high and the consequences of getting slow fatal, as in rolling the airplane over on its back, in a single engine situation. Anyway, most of the flaws were corrected through better training, a longer wing and larger empennage and the B-26 recovered from being a “Widowmaker” to having the lowest USAAF loss rate in Europe. But, the lack of pitch trim was not a problem on this airplane, as it isn’t on nearly every airplane...the lack of YAW trim, though, is another story. With that small rudder, especially the initial design, having the rudder authority...much less the trim authority...to control the airplane must have been a workout for the leg pushing the correct rudder pedal almost to the floor and holding it there until a safe landing.
+1Very good build, what makes it even better is that the Marauder is little built or appreciated in the SP community, and this is a great example. Performance is very historically accurate, pitch and roll control response is very appropriate, not too fast nor too slow. Acceleration and takeoff performance is very good. It does need more nose up trim authority, at 230 mph with full nose up trim, still needs a little back stick pressure to stay level. Should be able to fly level, trimmed up, hands off. It’s better with full flaps, but it assumes a weirdly nose up attitude in level flight or on approach path with flaps down. Not sure the real life airplane flew that nose high. But speeds are realistic, nothing wildly unrealistic and it generally flies like a RL airplane. Nice. Weapons are interesting, I always like the bomber builds, they’re fun. This one is also very fun to fly around. I hit the Beast and managed not to get shot down!
+1@AzureCorp did I mention 1,000 hrs somewhere? I looked everywhere on this post and I didn’t see where I said that. I have more than 4,000 hrs TT, not sim time, real life flying time in a variety of real aircraft.
@Wallaby I’ve flown many different aircraft, but my current one is the 737.
@Wallaby sure thing, thanks!
@Wallaby sure, it’s more than 2,000, but not unreasonable. Though, at that threshold, I’m probably the only one here that falls into the “experienced” category.
Just checked with a fellow pilot friend of mine who I am guessing has the most hours of anyone I know...he’s been flying for around 40 years. He has around 9,800 hrs. There certainly are lifelong airline pilots I know of who have 25,000 hrs, but certainly any pilot who’s spent an extended time flying in the military, even if they’d flown airlines after they retired from the military (as I have), 10,000 hrs is a fairly high threshold.
Hmmm. I’d lower the threshold for the “experienced” category to anyone with more than 2,000 hrs TT. Ten thousand hours is A LOT. It would take an airline pilot about 15 yrs to get that many hours (FAA limit is 1,000 hrs a year) and I could probably count the number of USAF pilots with more than 10,000 hrs on one hand and none of those guys are flying fighters.
Well, I really like it, but I wonder if I found an SP glitch: I advance the throttle, the engines accelerate, but the plane doesn’t move at all. I adjust the VTOL, which you’ve programmed for the flaps, so that doesn’t change the pitch...any tips on how to get this to move?
+1Fairly faithful recreation of the real thing. These fighters, along with some Caproni bombers, actually participated in some raids on Britain during the WWII...ya know, fascists helping fascists, back when we truly knew what “fascist” meant...any way Wing Commander Robert Stanford Tuck participated in that aerial engagement flying (as I remember) a Hurricane. You can find a contemporary account of the battle if you search “Italian Raiders Hurricaned!” on YouTube. I didn’t post the direct link here because the video is definitely not PC. But it’s an interesting look into the mind of the wartime British populace who were fighting for their lives against an evil movement. The Fiats were highly maneuverable, but not fast and didn’t absorb damage that well and quite a few were shot down. An odd little battle in a huge war. Though I might have done a couple of things differently here, I like this build a lot and am surprised it’s been posted for over an hour with no upvotes until I came along. I’d Spotlight you, but you have twice the points that I do!
@MotorManiac no, not the Voodoo, all the guys who flew that one are OLD...but I do have plenty of experience in airplanes with high wing loading that were designed to fly like the Voodoo.
@Hedero that’s actually not that surprising, the F-5 and MiG-21 were very similar performers, which is why the U.S. uses the F-5 as an adversary simulator to this day. The F-20 was a better performer, thanks to the much better engine with more thrust, but it wasn’t light years ahead of the MiG in terms of sheer performance numbers. But the weapons systems, cockpit displays and pilot integration was better than the MiG. That aspect is much more difficult to capture in SP, but it does make sense you were able to tweak the flying performance. It’s also gratifying in that I was able to at least land in the same performance ballpark as the RL jet.
+1@Nash11 yeah, mirroring complex builds tends to form extra connections and freezes parts which are attached to rotators.
You deleted the rudder and painted the landing gear struts red???
Bravo! Very nice build...first of all, it’s beautiful. The flight model is great, slow acceleration, appropriate roll rate, it loses energy in the turn. It actually flies as I understand those earlier jets flew, marginal excess power, bolters were dangerous due to slow engine acceleration, landings were doable, but dangerous if you screwed them up. Minor, minor complaints...the engine spool up is perhaps a bit slow (would have to read up on the jet to be sure) and landing gear extension should result in increased drag; but overall, great job!
+4Looks good, good cockpit view and it flies relatively well. Roll rate, takeoff and landing characteristics and lightness/responsiveness of controls (as well as that can be simulated in SP) are all very well done. For next time, however: Turn rate is way too high. I have not evaluated G capability using the dev console, but this build is probably pulling 18-30 Gs in the turn. Energy loss in the turn itself is appropriate, but G capability is way too high; no manned aircraft traveling at 200 knots can turn inside the width of the Wright Island Airport, which is probably 150’ wide, even given the maneuvering reserve built into most aircraft Otherwise, very good build and very fun to fly.
+5This thing is a blast to drive!
GLASS!!!!
Probably the best screenshot in the history of screenshots, luckily the build lives up to the screenshot.
+1