Eleventh! I like it, I like it a lot, very engaging and fun to fly. Quite realistic for a fictional build. The cockpit view is great and the performance is spot on. Also, it’s quite easy to land, can’t wait for a navalized version of this bomber, I think the USS Beast could handle it quite easily.
@BornToBeBurned well, have to say, “your wings suck” isn’t as helpful as a better suggestion on how you would have built the wings differently. Besides, as the creator has said, this is a fictional build, so “blueprint” rules do not apply.
I don’t think the formula pasted correctly. I can copy and paste it to you on my PC via Discord, if you can wait a couple of days as I’m on the road right now. Until then, what parameters would you like for your control surfaces?
Nice build. Flight model is actually very good. Realistic fuel quantity and weights, good acceleration. The roll rate is a bit too fast, IMHO, I usually will benchmark the roll rate at 500 KIAS, beyond which most airplanes will not often fly, even if a fighter aircraft. This one seems to be benchmarked at a much slower speed, 250-300 knots. But, besides that, it is very good. Simple and engaging, looks like the T-4 and gets most of the major characteristics correct...nice work!
@DeezDucks take a look at this one again. I made a big effort to incorporate accurate Mach effects into this build. There’s a Mach meter in the cockpit, decreased effectiveness on the horizontal tail above Mach 1.0 and the shock cone extends between Mach 1.5 and 2.2. Your build, the RL jet being optimized for high Mach numbers, in fact every high Mach jet, would benefit from incorporating Mach effects into your design. Take a look at my formulas and use what you would like.
While the numbers aren’t perfectly RL, they’re close and, hence, the jet really feels like a RL fighter jet of this era. It pulls appropriately hard, slows down in high speed turns, roll rate is realistic and it has a great cockpit that doesn’t sacrifice the fuselage outline, beautiful work. Great build and great flight model.
@RamboJutter just doing the FT formula on a single rotator wold be much simpler. The trick to FT is to think of any rotator’s output as a range of -1 to 1. An unmodified rotator will simply translate an input from say, pitch, as 1 for full aft stick, 0 for neutral and -1 for full forward stick. If you would like to modify this output based on your aircraft’s speed, you can write a formula that takes your speed and decreases the output to the rotator. You can visualize the new output the same way you would graph a geometry formula. Here’s a formula that I’ve used in the past to half the output of a rotator to make it less effective beyond a certain speed, in this case, 33% less effective beyond 335 m/s: clamp(Pitch+Trim,-1,1)(1-clamp01(floor(TAS/335))0.33)),-1,1). The hardest part, TBH, is usually the syntax; you know what you want to do, but getting the phrasing right is sometimes a bit tricky.
You know, I’ve actually started a remaster of my most popular build and reading up on that jet, the F-100, there was a limiting system to prevent over controlling at high speeds. I’m wondering if some clever coding in FT might enable us to rotate and takeoff at lower speeds, but prevent unrealistic maneuverability at higher speeds.
Your builds are so much fun. Also, those Skybolts are fantastic! Little known fact: The EE Thunder was overshadowed by its Lightning stable mate, only a single squadron of 12 aircraft was ever fielded, but during initial ops at RAF Akrotiri, the type’s extremely high takeoff speed led to a number of takeoff incidents and rapid withdrawal after only 2 years.
I built for quite awhile on mobile, one of my Highlighted planes is a mobile build. But, once I went PC, I never looked back. It’s not hard to make the transition.
@MobileFriendly you need to get the PC version, much easier to build. I know it’s an investment, but if you have access to a PC, I highly recommend you get the PC version of the game.
You, my friend, need to take better screenshots, the screenshot that is displayed with your post is off center, not good. This is a 1:1 model of one of the carriers at Pearl Harbor, it should have a lot more than 14 upvotes! I'll do my best to help by highlighting your build. A better screenshot (or at least, one that doesn't suck) will lead to more upvotes.
American...definitely. Build the USS Lexington (CV-2, the "Lady Lex") next. If you haven't read the book, make time to do so as it's a fantastic first-person account by a reporter who cruised on the USS Lexington during the Battle of the Coral Sea, where she was sunk. Stanley Johnston, the reporter, went into the water with the crew when she sunk.
You might not want to spend too much time on that damage model...sure, it’s an interesting skill to manipulate the “verticalG” attribute in FT, but I’ve never heard of a Mirage 2000’s wings or control surfaces shearing off due to an over-G. Usually, the plane just gets “bent” in certain ways (though can’t imagine where on the Mirage, given the size of the wing root and compact fuselage), or the motor mounts need replacement, or the pilot just G’s out and the plane crashes.
@hRmm well, it’s a fighter sized airplane with more than 1,000 parts, not much more room to actually cram in any more details. Much of the work isn’t what you can see from the screenshots and not captured by the part count, that’s the flight model, which I spent a lot of time on and is what actually makes up the majority of the description. Just like a RL flight manual, the instructions are long and complex so that the prospective aviator knows all the ins and outs of flying the aircraft safely.
IRL, an aircraft’s “top speed” is its fastest TAS, or how fast it moves through still air. IAS, which is measured by the force of air molecules entering a pitot tube and impacting a diaphragm, varies greatly by air density and is much closer to TAS at sea level, where the air is denser, but much less than TAS at high altitudes, where the air is much “thinner” or less dense. However, IAS is very important to a pilot because an aircraft always stalls at a given IAS...though an aircraft’s TAS may be very high at high altitude, it’s IAS is much lower at that high altitude. So, regardless of altitude, an aircraft will stall at the same IAS (disregarding compressibility) because IAS is the best indication of how much air is flowing over the wings, tail and fuselage as it automatically considers the density of the airflow. Prior to the advent of GPS (or inertial systems or Doppler Radar), pilots and navigators had to compute their TAS based on their IAS, air density (temperature and altitude), and forecast headwind/tailwind, or looking at known landmarks, in order to determine the distance moved across the ground as there was not a “TAS indicator” until the advent of inertial reference systems. However, IAS has always been just as important because IAS, more so than other speed indications, is the easiest and best predictor of aircraft’s ability to remain airborne and handle properly.
There were only 3 built, I believe, hence the “X” for experimental. If you have even one photo with trailing link LG, I would go with that. Also, you’ll find that building accurate LG from a “blueprint” (they’re not “blueprints”, they’re actually “3-views”) is very difficult as a static picture cannot show extension/compression, just one or the other. So, I suggest you work off photos, use a 3 view to make sure to get the length generally correct and make your best guess.
Overall, this is pretty good for a large jet. It flies like a large jet, with realistic acceleration, speeds, wing loading and maneuverability. Though not exactly as heavy as a RL E-3, your build is over 200K, which is much, much better than stupid builds which have negative weights. The wing flex is very well done...subtle enough that it's not distracting and it doesn't ruin the handling, but noticeable as it is IRL. And you use the semi-symmetric airfoil, correct and very good, many, many builders use that Cessna (flat-bottomed) profile for some unfathomable reason. The overall level of detail is good without going overboard and the rotating dish actually rotates. I also like the fact you've included the high lift (LE) devices, roll spoilers, inboard and outboard flaps (though, IRL, there's a roll program that only employs the spoilers over a certain yoke deflection and the outboard ailerons only operate below a certain speed). The reverse thrust visual effect is good, with the sliding translating sleeves.
Cockpit View - Really needs one, it's all too easy to get high or low on final, leading to short of overrun landings on Avalanche's runway if you can't see the runway through the build which is blocking your view.
Overall, though, very nice build. Looks like an E-3, flies kinda like an E-3, I agree with the major decisions you made in your build. The details are just that: details. I'd Spotlight you, however, you have many more points than I do!
Is this the build that sent ol' Random over the edge? Though I'm not one for picking on someone, she should have just let it go. I probably would have laughed about it, there have been plenty of uncredited and crappy variations others have made to my builds.
"The numbers are TAS and IAS in knots on the left, and Altitude in feet on the right."...you, sir, are now officially my favorite builder: The only other person I know in all of SP who uses the correct speed (knots) and altitude (feet) units!
@PotatoWasTaken no, absolutely not. This is a Sukhoi, the MiG-21 is a Mikoyan Gurevich. In the West, there are competing aircraft companies which design their own lines of aircraft, such as Lockheed, Boeing or Northrop Grumman. There is some cooperation, but there is a lot of competition to sell the best aircraft to the government and fulfill a contract, so there are many different approaches to each requirement. In the USSR, every aircraft manufacturer was actually a part of a single, larger state aircraft production effort which was centrally controlled. But each bureau, Sukhoi, MiG, Tupolev, etc., had a head designer, was assigned a task or requirement...in this case, to build a fast, high flying, missile armed interceptor. The similarity between the MiG-21 and the Su-9/11 is really due to the fact that TsAGI (the Soviet equivalent of NACA/NASA), determined that a tailed delta with a nose intake and central shock cone was the ideal configuration for this mission. Both Sukhoi and MiG got this information from TsAGI, the State controlled aeronautics research bureau and simply designed their respective jets, the Su-9/12 and the MiG-21. That’s the full story on why the MiG-21 and the Su-9/11 look so similar, albeit the Sukhoi is much larger.
Oh, and don’t forget the “logo lights”...these are really for lighting up your company’s big logo painted on the tail...advertising, you know. Lit anytime crew is onboard at night and when airborne (below 18,000’).
Here are the lighting requirement and when those lights should be illuminated:
Position lights (AKA “Nav lights”): Red light on left wing, near wingtip, green light on left wing, near wingtip, while light at the end of tailcone (sometimes at tip of vertical tail, especially if a T tail). These shine steadily and are typically illuminated whenever there’s power on the jet, even when parked with the engines shutdown. Another variation you’ll see is two wingtip lights, one on top and another on the bottom, typically done if the light cannot be placed at the very end of the wingtip.
Red anti collision beacon, AKA “rotating beacon”. This one flashes, usually about once a second, either by mechanically turning a light in a housing or just flashing the light if an LED (787). Typically two lights, one on the top of the fuselage and one on the bottom. Illuminated any time the engines are running. Again, you may see multiple lights of the physical position of the light is constrained in where it can go or if there’s something that blocks seeing the light in a certain direction (see “U-2 SPUR Pod”).
Strobe lights, white: These are the really bright flashing lights, they will typically flash in a pattern, such as two quick flashes, slight pause, two more quick flashes, etc. Illuminated anytime jet takes the runway for departure and is airborne, turned off when exiting the runway. Placement is typically one on top of the fuse, another on the bottom and one at each wingtip.
Landing, taxi and “turnoff” lights: All are white and designed to illuminate in front of the aircraft and some of each side to allow the pilots to steer without leaving the taxiway or hitting anything. Landing lights are typically bigger and brighter and canted somewhat downwards to illuminate the runway on short final. Turnoff lights illuminate usually when the jet is turning beyond a certain number of degrees to clear the side of the aircraft during the turn. Location depends, but typically on the nose gear strut (taxi), wing roots or they may extend out the bottom of the wing. Again, taxi takeoff and land with the taxi lights on, the landing lights are activated with a switch and usually when the landing gear is extended and the turnoff lights are typically connected with the taxi light switch and activated when the steering tiller is turned a certain amount in each direction.
Also, don’t get too Funky...most of these lights are simple on/off switches activated by the pilots...
@CRJ900Pilot you don’t, at least there’s no great way to fix it. The autoroll starts because when a missile is fired, weight is removed from that side of the build and the heavier side causes the build to roll in that direction. The issue is that SP is way more sensitive to weight imbalances than IRL. I’ve flown airplanes that were imbalanced to the tune of 1,500 lbs and while it may have been a small handful on takeoff or landing, it wasn’t a big deal once airborne as you could trim it out. Likewise, when an F-15 fires an AIM-9 off one side, it absolutely doesn’t cause a noticeable rolling moment. You could try and add a way to adjust roll trim, but it doesn’t work that well. My F-20 actually has that feature on the VTOL slider for when one of the wingtip missiles are fired. Try it out, you’ll see it doesn’t work perfectly.
@CRJ900Pilot actually, much of that is classified, even though I’m pretty sure the AIM-9B is no longer in service anywhere. But other versions of the Sidewinder are in service, which explains why you might be having some trouble finding those numbers. The AIM-7D I don’t think is in service, being superseded by the AIM-120, so might be easier to find some declassified numbers. As far as ranges, I suggest you use the kinematic range of the missile as it greatly depends if the shot is fired head on or during a tail chase. Lock on time is also highly dependent on a number of factors, including the aircraft radar. Which build are you making?
@Dimkal well, it’s an interesting point you make regarding the possibility of trim tabs on the Sukhoi-9 and 11. Research was difficult with limited sources and I ended up having to buy the definitive resource on these jets, Yefim Gordon’s “Sukhoi Interceptors”, a 320 page tome on the subject. If you mean on the horizontal stab, or really anywhere else on the jet, it was set up just like the MiG-21. TsAGI, the Soviet aerodynamics institute, the equivalent of NACA/NASA, studied the problems of high speed flight and recommended a tailed delta with a nose inlet and central shockcone as the optimal configuration for high altitude, supersonic aircraft. This is why the Su-9/11 and the MiG-21, all designed at the same time, all had the same setup, including the one piece all moving “stabilator”. Besides the textual description and photos in Gordon’s book, there was also this gem of a resource, a 500+ photo walk around of Su-11 “Red 14” in Monino air park in Russia, which clearly shows the all moving tail (if you use this resource in a future build beware, page load times are ABYSMALLY slow!). Not sure if the construction of the tail misled you or anyone else, but you can tell from the riveting what looks like a full span tab surface is fixed, though I did not find anything discussing whether or not it may have been bent up or down on the ground as a maintenance function. I doubt so as metal fatigue would have eventually broken that tab off and necessitated repairing and/or replacing that entire stab. Besides the documentation, supersonic aircraft almost never have trim tabs or elevators (the Yak-28 being the notable and puzzling exception, though I read that later Yak-28s were retrofitted with all moving tailplanes) due to the shockwave off the leading edge of the tail blanking elevators when transonic and supersonic. In the end, figuring out the physical construction of the type was difficult, but not impossible, while the flying characteristics were more of a mystery. For that, I read a lot of declassified documents from the HAVE DONUT project, when the USAF “borrowed” and tested the MiG-21, which gave a lot of specifics on flight characteristics, energy loss from the tailed delta configuration and general performance. The Su-9/11 are very similarly setup to the MiG, so I tried to model this like a bigger, heavier Fishbed with a dash of powered rudder (lacking on the MiG-21) and tried to remember that her pilots generally found the jet pleasant and responsive.
Well said and I said so on the original post when that plane went past 50 upvotes. I agree with you for the same reasons as you articulate: First, how does this make the creator, @Spicyninja feel? How would anyone else feel being constantly ridiculed on a post? Probably not welcome as his post has been constantly ridiculed since posting. This community has by and large been fairly supportive in the past, but this joking reaction has been a pretty poor representation of the majority of people on site. Second, this build is awfully simple to have more than 100 upvotes, which in itself degrades the community’s efforts as a whole.
Dang it, someone else guessed first. Oh, well.
That’s a CRJ 200...or as I like to call it, the “Super 2”. I have more than 500 hrs in the right seat of that plane.
Eleventh! I like it, I like it a lot, very engaging and fun to fly. Quite realistic for a fictional build. The cockpit view is great and the performance is spot on. Also, it’s quite easy to land, can’t wait for a navalized version of this bomber, I think the USS Beast could handle it quite easily.
@BornToBeBurned well, have to say, “your wings suck” isn’t as helpful as a better suggestion on how you would have built the wings differently. Besides, as the creator has said, this is a fictional build, so “blueprint” rules do not apply.
+3I don’t think the formula pasted correctly. I can copy and paste it to you on my PC via Discord, if you can wait a couple of days as I’m on the road right now. Until then, what parameters would you like for your control surfaces?
Nice build. Flight model is actually very good. Realistic fuel quantity and weights, good acceleration. The roll rate is a bit too fast, IMHO, I usually will benchmark the roll rate at 500 KIAS, beyond which most airplanes will not often fly, even if a fighter aircraft. This one seems to be benchmarked at a much slower speed, 250-300 knots. But, besides that, it is very good. Simple and engaging, looks like the T-4 and gets most of the major characteristics correct...nice work!
@Diloph nope. Free to use.
@DeezDucks take a look at this one again. I made a big effort to incorporate accurate Mach effects into this build. There’s a Mach meter in the cockpit, decreased effectiveness on the horizontal tail above Mach 1.0 and the shock cone extends between Mach 1.5 and 2.2. Your build, the RL jet being optimized for high Mach numbers, in fact every high Mach jet, would benefit from incorporating Mach effects into your design. Take a look at my formulas and use what you would like.
Mirage F1.
+2While the numbers aren’t perfectly RL, they’re close and, hence, the jet really feels like a RL fighter jet of this era. It pulls appropriately hard, slows down in high speed turns, roll rate is realistic and it has a great cockpit that doesn’t sacrifice the fuselage outline, beautiful work. Great build and great flight model.
I really like the details here. Also, the cockpit work is great...plus, it doesn’t sacrifice the fuselage outlines. Nice work.
@RamboJutter just doing the FT formula on a single rotator wold be much simpler. The trick to FT is to think of any rotator’s output as a range of -1 to 1. An unmodified rotator will simply translate an input from say, pitch, as 1 for full aft stick, 0 for neutral and -1 for full forward stick. If you would like to modify this output based on your aircraft’s speed, you can write a formula that takes your speed and decreases the output to the rotator. You can visualize the new output the same way you would graph a geometry formula. Here’s a formula that I’ve used in the past to half the output of a rotator to make it less effective beyond a certain speed, in this case, 33% less effective beyond 335 m/s: clamp(Pitch+Trim,-1,1)(1-clamp01(floor(TAS/335))0.33)),-1,1). The hardest part, TBH, is usually the syntax; you know what you want to do, but getting the phrasing right is sometimes a bit tricky.
You know, I’ve actually started a remaster of my most popular build and reading up on that jet, the F-100, there was a limiting system to prevent over controlling at high speeds. I’m wondering if some clever coding in FT might enable us to rotate and takeoff at lower speeds, but prevent unrealistic maneuverability at higher speeds.
Your builds are so much fun. Also, those Skybolts are fantastic! Little known fact: The EE Thunder was overshadowed by its Lightning stable mate, only a single squadron of 12 aircraft was ever fielded, but during initial ops at RAF Akrotiri, the type’s extremely high takeoff speed led to a number of takeoff incidents and rapid withdrawal after only 2 years.
I built for quite awhile on mobile, one of my Highlighted planes is a mobile build. But, once I went PC, I never looked back. It’s not hard to make the transition.
@MobileFriendly you need to get the PC version, much easier to build. I know it’s an investment, but if you have access to a PC, I highly recommend you get the PC version of the game.
You, my friend, need to take better screenshots, the screenshot that is displayed with your post is off center, not good. This is a 1:1 model of one of the carriers at Pearl Harbor, it should have a lot more than 14 upvotes! I'll do my best to help by highlighting your build. A better screenshot (or at least, one that doesn't suck) will lead to more upvotes.
+1American...definitely. Build the USS Lexington (CV-2, the "Lady Lex") next. If you haven't read the book, make time to do so as it's a fantastic first-person account by a reporter who cruised on the USS Lexington during the Battle of the Coral Sea, where she was sunk. Stanley Johnston, the reporter, went into the water with the crew when she sunk.
@MobileFriendly sorry, I don’t understand the question.
@TanksWorldwide close, but I see no one gets my reference.
Shokaku, Zuikaku, Hiryu, Soryu, Kaga, Akagi!
@asteroidbook345 they're not mine, @FairFireFight built them, credit him, please.
You might not want to spend too much time on that damage model...sure, it’s an interesting skill to manipulate the “verticalG” attribute in FT, but I’ve never heard of a Mirage 2000’s wings or control surfaces shearing off due to an over-G. Usually, the plane just gets “bent” in certain ways (though can’t imagine where on the Mirage, given the size of the wing root and compact fuselage), or the motor mounts need replacement, or the pilot just G’s out and the plane crashes.
+1@SFNox 737
@SFNox still flying for now.
@SFNox a few different ones in the USAF and airlines. C-152/172, T-41, T-37, T-38, KC-135, U-2, CRJ-200, 737, mainly.
I hope you include the “BB” tail code!
Well, in spite of the anime chick in your profile pic, this one...any Sukhoi, really...deserves an upvote.
+1@hRmm well, it’s a fighter sized airplane with more than 1,000 parts, not much more room to actually cram in any more details. Much of the work isn’t what you can see from the screenshots and not captured by the part count, that’s the flight model, which I spent a lot of time on and is what actually makes up the majority of the description. Just like a RL flight manual, the instructions are long and complex so that the prospective aviator knows all the ins and outs of flying the aircraft safely.
Classic yellow, always.
IRL, an aircraft’s “top speed” is its fastest TAS, or how fast it moves through still air. IAS, which is measured by the force of air molecules entering a pitot tube and impacting a diaphragm, varies greatly by air density and is much closer to TAS at sea level, where the air is denser, but much less than TAS at high altitudes, where the air is much “thinner” or less dense. However, IAS is very important to a pilot because an aircraft always stalls at a given IAS...though an aircraft’s TAS may be very high at high altitude, it’s IAS is much lower at that high altitude. So, regardless of altitude, an aircraft will stall at the same IAS (disregarding compressibility) because IAS is the best indication of how much air is flowing over the wings, tail and fuselage as it automatically considers the density of the airflow. Prior to the advent of GPS (or inertial systems or Doppler Radar), pilots and navigators had to compute their TAS based on their IAS, air density (temperature and altitude), and forecast headwind/tailwind, or looking at known landmarks, in order to determine the distance moved across the ground as there was not a “TAS indicator” until the advent of inertial reference systems. However, IAS has always been just as important because IAS, more so than other speed indications, is the easiest and best predictor of aircraft’s ability to remain airborne and handle properly.
+2There were only 3 built, I believe, hence the “X” for experimental. If you have even one photo with trailing link LG, I would go with that. Also, you’ll find that building accurate LG from a “blueprint” (they’re not “blueprints”, they’re actually “3-views”) is very difficult as a static picture cannot show extension/compression, just one or the other. So, I suggest you work off photos, use a 3 view to make sure to get the length generally correct and make your best guess.
It really works, cool!
+1Overall, this is pretty good for a large jet. It flies like a large jet, with realistic acceleration, speeds, wing loading and maneuverability. Though not exactly as heavy as a RL E-3, your build is over 200K, which is much, much better than stupid builds which have negative weights. The wing flex is very well done...subtle enough that it's not distracting and it doesn't ruin the handling, but noticeable as it is IRL. And you use the semi-symmetric airfoil, correct and very good, many, many builders use that Cessna (flat-bottomed) profile for some unfathomable reason. The overall level of detail is good without going overboard and the rotating dish actually rotates. I also like the fact you've included the high lift (LE) devices, roll spoilers, inboard and outboard flaps (though, IRL, there's a roll program that only employs the spoilers over a certain yoke deflection and the outboard ailerons only operate below a certain speed). The reverse thrust visual effect is good, with the sliding translating sleeves.
Complaints/gripes:
Construction/details - Looks good and you nicked theAlban's "U.S. AIR FORCE", but where are the stars and bars? Totally missing, you should have included them as every USAF aircraft has them, sometimes subdued, but they're always there, even on AF1. Plus, they would have lent a much needed pop of color to the otherwise drab grey. Sure, they would have added a few more parts, but once you're over 1,000, does it matter that much anyway? If I'm making a big deal about a small-ish detail it's because as a 24 year AF pilot, every USAF build absolutely, positively needs the glorious stars and bars!
Strobes...yeah, she has them. It's better to assume that any large jet flying in the current era has strobes.
Flight Model - Trim is reversed. IRL, the E-3 has a split switch located on the left (aircraft commander) or right (copilot) horn of the yoke, which moves up and down to actuate the trim. The pilot pushes forward on the switch for nose down trim and pulls back for nose up trim. Don't know why, but many SP builders make this mistake, to the extent that I've griped about it before.
Cockpit View - Really needs one, it's all too easy to get high or low on final, leading to short of overrun landings on Avalanche's runway if you can't see the runway through the build which is blocking your view.
Overall, though, very nice build. Looks like an E-3, flies kinda like an E-3, I agree with the major decisions you made in your build. The details are just that: details. I'd Spotlight you, however, you have many more points than I do!
+3Is this the build that sent ol' Random over the edge? Though I'm not one for picking on someone, she should have just let it go. I probably would have laughed about it, there have been plenty of uncredited and crappy variations others have made to my builds.
+2"The numbers are TAS and IAS in knots on the left, and Altitude in feet on the right."...you, sir, are now officially my favorite builder: The only other person I know in all of SP who uses the correct speed (knots) and altitude (feet) units!
+3Congratulations to one of our most talented, respected and reasonable members. Well deserved!
+5@Blue0Bull wait a minute...did I miss something, are you now a Mod?!?
@PotatoWasTaken no, absolutely not. This is a Sukhoi, the MiG-21 is a Mikoyan Gurevich. In the West, there are competing aircraft companies which design their own lines of aircraft, such as Lockheed, Boeing or Northrop Grumman. There is some cooperation, but there is a lot of competition to sell the best aircraft to the government and fulfill a contract, so there are many different approaches to each requirement. In the USSR, every aircraft manufacturer was actually a part of a single, larger state aircraft production effort which was centrally controlled. But each bureau, Sukhoi, MiG, Tupolev, etc., had a head designer, was assigned a task or requirement...in this case, to build a fast, high flying, missile armed interceptor. The similarity between the MiG-21 and the Su-9/11 is really due to the fact that TsAGI (the Soviet equivalent of NACA/NASA), determined that a tailed delta with a nose intake and central shock cone was the ideal configuration for this mission. Both Sukhoi and MiG got this information from TsAGI, the State controlled aeronautics research bureau and simply designed their respective jets, the Su-9/12 and the MiG-21. That’s the full story on why the MiG-21 and the Su-9/11 look so similar, albeit the Sukhoi is much larger.
+1I like the camo work.
Oh, and don’t forget the “logo lights”...these are really for lighting up your company’s big logo painted on the tail...advertising, you know. Lit anytime crew is onboard at night and when airborne (below 18,000’).
+3Here are the lighting requirement and when those lights should be illuminated:
Position lights (AKA “Nav lights”): Red light on left wing, near wingtip, green light on left wing, near wingtip, while light at the end of tailcone (sometimes at tip of vertical tail, especially if a T tail). These shine steadily and are typically illuminated whenever there’s power on the jet, even when parked with the engines shutdown. Another variation you’ll see is two wingtip lights, one on top and another on the bottom, typically done if the light cannot be placed at the very end of the wingtip.
Red anti collision beacon, AKA “rotating beacon”. This one flashes, usually about once a second, either by mechanically turning a light in a housing or just flashing the light if an LED (787). Typically two lights, one on the top of the fuselage and one on the bottom. Illuminated any time the engines are running. Again, you may see multiple lights of the physical position of the light is constrained in where it can go or if there’s something that blocks seeing the light in a certain direction (see “U-2 SPUR Pod”).
Strobe lights, white: These are the really bright flashing lights, they will typically flash in a pattern, such as two quick flashes, slight pause, two more quick flashes, etc. Illuminated anytime jet takes the runway for departure and is airborne, turned off when exiting the runway. Placement is typically one on top of the fuse, another on the bottom and one at each wingtip.
Landing, taxi and “turnoff” lights: All are white and designed to illuminate in front of the aircraft and some of each side to allow the pilots to steer without leaving the taxiway or hitting anything. Landing lights are typically bigger and brighter and canted somewhat downwards to illuminate the runway on short final. Turnoff lights illuminate usually when the jet is turning beyond a certain number of degrees to clear the side of the aircraft during the turn. Location depends, but typically on the nose gear strut (taxi), wing roots or they may extend out the bottom of the wing. Again, taxi takeoff and land with the taxi lights on, the landing lights are activated with a switch and usually when the landing gear is extended and the turnoff lights are typically connected with the taxi light switch and activated when the steering tiller is turned a certain amount in each direction.
Also, don’t get too Funky...most of these lights are simple on/off switches activated by the pilots...
+11Ninetieth!
+1@CRJ900Pilot ok, that is a bit strange.
@CRJ900Pilot you don’t, at least there’s no great way to fix it. The autoroll starts because when a missile is fired, weight is removed from that side of the build and the heavier side causes the build to roll in that direction. The issue is that SP is way more sensitive to weight imbalances than IRL. I’ve flown airplanes that were imbalanced to the tune of 1,500 lbs and while it may have been a small handful on takeoff or landing, it wasn’t a big deal once airborne as you could trim it out. Likewise, when an F-15 fires an AIM-9 off one side, it absolutely doesn’t cause a noticeable rolling moment. You could try and add a way to adjust roll trim, but it doesn’t work that well. My F-20 actually has that feature on the VTOL slider for when one of the wingtip missiles are fired. Try it out, you’ll see it doesn’t work perfectly.
@CRJ900Pilot actually, much of that is classified, even though I’m pretty sure the AIM-9B is no longer in service anywhere. But other versions of the Sidewinder are in service, which explains why you might be having some trouble finding those numbers. The AIM-7D I don’t think is in service, being superseded by the AIM-120, so might be easier to find some declassified numbers. As far as ranges, I suggest you use the kinematic range of the missile as it greatly depends if the shot is fired head on or during a tail chase. Lock on time is also highly dependent on a number of factors, including the aircraft radar. Which build are you making?
@Dimkal well, it’s an interesting point you make regarding the possibility of trim tabs on the Sukhoi-9 and 11. Research was difficult with limited sources and I ended up having to buy the definitive resource on these jets, Yefim Gordon’s “Sukhoi Interceptors”, a 320 page tome on the subject. If you mean on the horizontal stab, or really anywhere else on the jet, it was set up just like the MiG-21. TsAGI, the Soviet aerodynamics institute, the equivalent of NACA/NASA, studied the problems of high speed flight and recommended a tailed delta with a nose inlet and central shockcone as the optimal configuration for high altitude, supersonic aircraft. This is why the Su-9/11 and the MiG-21, all designed at the same time, all had the same setup, including the one piece all moving “stabilator”. Besides the textual description and photos in Gordon’s book, there was also this gem of a resource, a 500+ photo walk around of Su-11 “Red 14” in Monino air park in Russia, which clearly shows the all moving tail (if you use this resource in a future build beware, page load times are ABYSMALLY slow!). Not sure if the construction of the tail misled you or anyone else, but you can tell from the riveting what looks like a full span tab surface is fixed, though I did not find anything discussing whether or not it may have been bent up or down on the ground as a maintenance function. I doubt so as metal fatigue would have eventually broken that tab off and necessitated repairing and/or replacing that entire stab. Besides the documentation, supersonic aircraft almost never have trim tabs or elevators (the Yak-28 being the notable and puzzling exception, though I read that later Yak-28s were retrofitted with all moving tailplanes) due to the shockwave off the leading edge of the tail blanking elevators when transonic and supersonic. In the end, figuring out the physical construction of the type was difficult, but not impossible, while the flying characteristics were more of a mystery. For that, I read a lot of declassified documents from the HAVE DONUT project, when the USAF “borrowed” and tested the MiG-21, which gave a lot of specifics on flight characteristics, energy loss from the tailed delta configuration and general performance. The Su-9/11 are very similarly setup to the MiG, so I tried to model this like a bigger, heavier Fishbed with a dash of powered rudder (lacking on the MiG-21) and tried to remember that her pilots generally found the jet pleasant and responsive.
+2Nice move, Jundroo!
+5Great correlation here between SP and RL!
Well said and I said so on the original post when that plane went past 50 upvotes. I agree with you for the same reasons as you articulate: First, how does this make the creator, @Spicyninja feel? How would anyone else feel being constantly ridiculed on a post? Probably not welcome as his post has been constantly ridiculed since posting. This community has by and large been fairly supportive in the past, but this joking reaction has been a pretty poor representation of the majority of people on site. Second, this build is awfully simple to have more than 100 upvotes, which in itself degrades the community’s efforts as a whole.
+11