@Hyattorama I can’t keep the y and z axes straight...but I think the fixed airplane reference is fixed in all axes, actually, but I would have to play around with it to make certain.
@Hyattorama it’s really just the same mechanism as yours with a fixed aircraft icon. Nothing complicated, like yours, only with a few extra parts. I had to put a mirrored aircraft reference on the far side of the horizon for balance, otherwise the ball would precess and eventually tumble due to being unbalanced.
@Hyattorama well this one is very similar to yours, but has a fixed airplane icon which displays climb and dive in front of the moving horizon. Note that during climbs the airplane icon is in front of the sky portion and during dives it is in front of the ground portion...just as an attitude indicator works in R.L. There are several geared attitude indicators, but I need to dig through my old messages to find the links. The one I built does what I was talking about, and is probably the simplest way of making it work that way.
Well, it does work in roll, but climb/dive indications work in reverse...which is what’s possible in SP without complicating the instrument. What makes other attitude indicator builds more complicated is that they indicate climb during nose up/climb attitudes and dive during nose down/dive attitudes. But I appreciate any sort of attitude indicators, as it denotes a higher level of SP understanding.
Well, flies nice, accelerates realistically, nice build. Why the gyro? If it’s to fly hands off, why not call it an autopilot? Also, will...not...run...out...of...fuel...!
Nice proportions, some cool features, but not really a replica, more of a “what if” build. As in, “what if the Soviets has built and exported a MiG-17 which accelerated like it was a projectile on a rail gun, turned its pilot to goo when it executed a break turn at 20 Gs, had heaters with helmet mounted cueing which could engage and fly three times as far as the AIM-9 and air to ground missiles which obliterated everything within 9 square miles?” Fun to fly and obliterate everything in one’s path, though!
@randomusername wrt your comments on trim, all aircraft that vary their airspeed vary trim. Any speed change requires a corresponding trim change to maintain level flight. My jet cruises around at .7-.8 Mach and the autopilot is constantly adjusting trim to maintain level flight. In fact, we have a second trim system, called, literally, “Mach Trim” which adjusts trim during high speed, high altitude flight. So, requiring trim changes above 200 mph is certainly not a cause to call an aircraft “poorly designed”.
@WarHawk95 certainly the Corsair would be in the running as the best shipborne fighter of all time, which, puts it in the running as the best fighter of all time, good thinking!
@WarHawk95 yes, I agree, putting each Cleaver on it’s own AG would be very true to life, as that’s how it worked on the real X-1, waiting to see the final result!
The real thing had a fairly high wing loading, even higher than this build, but glided better (it landed at around 130 mph). I’m not sure how much of the aircraft weight was fuel, though I’m fairly certain it was significant. Probably, the X-1 empty had a significantly lower wing loading and, thus, a more manageable landing speed than here. I’m gliding this thing 20-30 degrees nose low and it doesn’t really glide at all. But, I’ve noticed that in all SP gliders. If you were going to rebuild this thing with Cleaver missiles, I might suggest aiming for the empty weight wing loading, either through reducing the fuel load (unfortunately, the Cleavers will not consume fuel) or by scaling the wing. Anyway, you nailed everything else here, nice build!
@F104Deathtrap wow. That’s a stretch...but I like your reasoning. So, ok, I’m game and I accept your logic. It’s interesting, though, to consider both in the case of the Buffalo and the Eagle, how much the role of training and proficiency has in the kill record of a particular fighter. There are many cases where better trained, more proficient tacticians flying in inferior aircraft actually best superior aircraft flown by inferior pilots (Wildcat vs. Zero may be case in point here)...
Well, she’s a hot ship! Definitely looks the part and easy enough to takeoff, fly and land if you keep the speed under control (I almost ran off the end of the runway landing because she does not want to slow down—just like the real thing!), nice!
Depends if the gear is custom and set on rotators (no difference in drag), or the stock retractable gear, in which there may be a difference...though I’m not entirely sure since I don’t use the stock landing gear! In any event, the issue is an SP issue and has absolutely no correlation to real life.
@Dimkal I know! But it was really fun to go blasting off the deck in full reverse before I figured it out! Great build, though, now it’s possible to land on the boat without first being an awesome pilot!
This is the reason I’ve stayed with my PC with Fine Tuner and Overload, though I started on iOS. I thought the update adding the rotation and nudging back to iOS was a great idea, but quickly realized I couldn’t really control the rotation angles, they would always be...off, even if it was a tiny amount. However the nudge and ability to type in size values while working with resizeable shapes are fantastic and I actually use those features from the basic editor more than I open the FT or Overload dialogue boxes. The ability to type in the rotation values would be the fix and I sure wish Jundroo would just hurry up and release SR2 and fix a few of the nagging issues with SP which have been around for months.
And, don’t think I don’t like this build, it’s great, a little part-heavy, but very nice, good details and very accurate outline. The gear is very good and is sized and canted just right. Overall, it just looks correct, which, believe it or not is tough to do on a replica build. And you did a fantastic job on the markings and camo. Plus the performance is spot-on...very nice. Autoroll or “induced roll” in SP is a real problem, the SP flight model shouldn’t be so sensitive to weight differences between sides, the clip and nudge issues are a pain and I have no idea why in the world mirroring parts creates drag asymmetry, but it does. This issue hurts a lot of fantastic creations and it’s not really the builders’ faults. But, all we can do at this point as builders is to recognize and rectify these issues.
If you have the latest version of Overload, the “dragScale=0” field has been added, plus additional features and fields. The dragScale thing in SP is fairly new, but very useful, I do a lot of jet builds and I use it to reduce the drag so that I can achieve realistic performance while preserving realistic acceleration. I use only two mods: Overload and Fine Tuner. Just go back and reload Overload and you should see the additional fields.
Also, did you build trim into this plane? It seems to create roll as you trim, as one of your trim surfaces is stuck, creating a roll. I looked for trim, but couldn't find where you put the surfaces. That might also be causing roll, especially if it changes the roll and direction.
Well, looking at the drag view in the designer, it looks like there's some asymmetric drag, especially one point on the wingtip, one of the gear struts and the tires. I would go back and modify it via XML to "DragScale=0" on those parts. I would modify both of the parts on each side of the build. Also, I believe you can also set the drag to those parts using the Overload mod. After that, if it still rolls, I would put in a bit of weight on one side to balance it out.
@Tessemi well, no. An altitude indicator and an attitude indicator are two different things. An attitude indicator displays where the horizon is, so that you can climb, descend or bank without losing control when in the weather (clouds). An altitude indicator, also known as an altimeter, displays elevation above sea level. An altimeter looks more like a dial with spinning hands (sometimes a drum) over numbers displaying the altitude readout.
Looks great! Actually, I rather like the Hellcat, right fighter at the right time, very successful in combination with USN fighter tactics, though today overshadowed somewhat by the Corsair. Vey emblematic of the time and circumstances.
Ok, this is great. I built something very similar to this a long time ago, but this one is better thought out and menacing—I especially like the canopy. One question, though...why didn’t you go full horizontal? I know, I know, they say, “never go full horizontal,” but it would have been cool if you had...
@F104Deathtrap, thanks for the support. Yeah, @Blue0Bull there was a little bit snarky, but it's ok, I'm not taking it personally. He has a point, albeit a snarky one; but bottom line, I did a little more research and asked around and discovered that, indeed, it is possible to make a working artificial horizon (though the pitch tends to display backwards unless you do a lot more work to the basic version).
Figured it out with a little help from some my friends on SPMC. Bottom line, it's possible, you just need to fix the reference (horizon line and/or hemispheres) to a free-spin rotator. The gyro then sits on the reference and the other end of the rotator is fixed to the build, or a second free-spin rotator if you want two axes. In any event, the other end of the last rotator is attached to the mounting point on the airplane.
Nice, reminds me of the Lansen, an older, but very good-looking bird. Also, very creative camo, I’m going to tag this as a favorite because I’ll need to remember how to do that on my next build!
@Hyattorama absolutely plausible, nice work 😃👍
+1Wow, nice build! Now I know why you were building instruments!
+1I really like the ground rules for your challenge, should be a good one.
+1@Hyattorama I can’t keep the y and z axes straight...but I think the fixed airplane reference is fixed in all axes, actually, but I would have to play around with it to make certain.
+1@Hyattorama it’s really just the same mechanism as yours with a fixed aircraft icon. Nothing complicated, like yours, only with a few extra parts. I had to put a mirrored aircraft reference on the far side of the horizon for balance, otherwise the ball would precess and eventually tumble due to being unbalanced.
+1@Hyattorama well this one is very similar to yours, but has a fixed airplane icon which displays climb and dive in front of the moving horizon. Note that during climbs the airplane icon is in front of the sky portion and during dives it is in front of the ground portion...just as an attitude indicator works in R.L. There are several geared attitude indicators, but I need to dig through my old messages to find the links. The one I built does what I was talking about, and is probably the simplest way of making it work that way.
+1Well, it does work in roll, but climb/dive indications work in reverse...which is what’s possible in SP without complicating the instrument. What makes other attitude indicator builds more complicated is that they indicate climb during nose up/climb attitudes and dive during nose down/dive attitudes. But I appreciate any sort of attitude indicators, as it denotes a higher level of SP understanding.
+1Well, flies nice, accelerates realistically, nice build. Why the gyro? If it’s to fly hands off, why not call it an autopilot? Also, will...not...run...out...of...fuel...!
+1Nice build, looks good, but you really need to plan your roll ins and roll outs!
+1Nice proportions, some cool features, but not really a replica, more of a “what if” build. As in, “what if the Soviets has built and exported a MiG-17 which accelerated like it was a projectile on a rail gun, turned its pilot to goo when it executed a break turn at 20 Gs, had heaters with helmet mounted cueing which could engage and fly three times as far as the AIM-9 and air to ground missiles which obliterated everything within 9 square miles?” Fun to fly and obliterate everything in one’s path, though!
+1Kewl.
+1@randomusername wrt your comments on trim, all aircraft that vary their airspeed vary trim. Any speed change requires a corresponding trim change to maintain level flight. My jet cruises around at .7-.8 Mach and the autopilot is constantly adjusting trim to maintain level flight. In fact, we have a second trim system, called, literally, “Mach Trim” which adjusts trim during high speed, high altitude flight. So, requiring trim changes above 200 mph is certainly not a cause to call an aircraft “poorly designed”.
+1I made many of the same complaints as you recently! Your post is far prettier—nice pics!
+1Why hadn’t upvotes this yet??? Oh well, that’s rectified now.
+1@WarHawk95 certainly the Corsair would be in the running as the best shipborne fighter of all time, which, puts it in the running as the best fighter of all time, good thinking!
+1@WarHawk95 yes, I agree, putting each Cleaver on it’s own AG would be very true to life, as that’s how it worked on the real X-1, waiting to see the final result!
+1Gotta love the portrait of Vigo the Carpathian!
+1The real thing had a fairly high wing loading, even higher than this build, but glided better (it landed at around 130 mph). I’m not sure how much of the aircraft weight was fuel, though I’m fairly certain it was significant. Probably, the X-1 empty had a significantly lower wing loading and, thus, a more manageable landing speed than here. I’m gliding this thing 20-30 degrees nose low and it doesn’t really glide at all. But, I’ve noticed that in all SP gliders. If you were going to rebuild this thing with Cleaver missiles, I might suggest aiming for the empty weight wing loading, either through reducing the fuel load (unfortunately, the Cleavers will not consume fuel) or by scaling the wing. Anyway, you nailed everything else here, nice build!
+1@QingyuZhou yes, it’s actually very easy to fly, I’m wondering how you made it that way...and you’re right, it’s extremely simple to hover.
+1This is eggsactly what this site need right now!
+1@Mostly of course it was...of course it was...
+1@F104Deathtrap wow. That’s a stretch...but I like your reasoning. So, ok, I’m game and I accept your logic. It’s interesting, though, to consider both in the case of the Buffalo and the Eagle, how much the role of training and proficiency has in the kill record of a particular fighter. There are many cases where better trained, more proficient tacticians flying in inferior aircraft actually best superior aircraft flown by inferior pilots (Wildcat vs. Zero may be case in point here)...
+1@RamboJutter nice, I like the not so obvious answers!
+1First!
+1Great work here...if you don’t mind revealing a secret or two: How did you make it so stable? It barely bobbles at all with control inputs...
+1@Mustang51 if you have any questions on how to mod, access the XML aircraft files, installing Overload or Fine Tuner, just let me know.
+1Well, she’s a hot ship! Definitely looks the part and easy enough to takeoff, fly and land if you keep the speed under control (I almost ran off the end of the runway landing because she does not want to slow down—just like the real thing!), nice!
+1Depends if the gear is custom and set on rotators (no difference in drag), or the stock retractable gear, in which there may be a difference...though I’m not entirely sure since I don’t use the stock landing gear! In any event, the issue is an SP issue and has absolutely no correlation to real life.
+1@Dimkal I know! But it was really fun to go blasting off the deck in full reverse before I figured it out! Great build, though, now it’s possible to land on the boat without first being an awesome pilot!
+1This is the reason I’ve stayed with my PC with Fine Tuner and Overload, though I started on iOS. I thought the update adding the rotation and nudging back to iOS was a great idea, but quickly realized I couldn’t really control the rotation angles, they would always be...off, even if it was a tiny amount. However the nudge and ability to type in size values while working with resizeable shapes are fantastic and I actually use those features from the basic editor more than I open the FT or Overload dialogue boxes. The ability to type in the rotation values would be the fix and I sure wish Jundroo would just hurry up and release SR2 and fix a few of the nagging issues with SP which have been around for months.
+1Wow, nice. Very nice. Flies exceptionally well, looks great...and...best of all, you didn’t resort to that stupid unlimited fuel trick!
+1And, don’t think I don’t like this build, it’s great, a little part-heavy, but very nice, good details and very accurate outline. The gear is very good and is sized and canted just right. Overall, it just looks correct, which, believe it or not is tough to do on a replica build. And you did a fantastic job on the markings and camo. Plus the performance is spot-on...very nice. Autoroll or “induced roll” in SP is a real problem, the SP flight model shouldn’t be so sensitive to weight differences between sides, the clip and nudge issues are a pain and I have no idea why in the world mirroring parts creates drag asymmetry, but it does. This issue hurts a lot of fantastic creations and it’s not really the builders’ faults. But, all we can do at this point as builders is to recognize and rectify these issues.
+1If you have the latest version of Overload, the “dragScale=0” field has been added, plus additional features and fields. The dragScale thing in SP is fairly new, but very useful, I do a lot of jet builds and I use it to reduce the drag so that I can achieve realistic performance while preserving realistic acceleration. I use only two mods: Overload and Fine Tuner. Just go back and reload Overload and you should see the additional fields.
+1Also, did you build trim into this plane? It seems to create roll as you trim, as one of your trim surfaces is stuck, creating a roll. I looked for trim, but couldn't find where you put the surfaces. That might also be causing roll, especially if it changes the roll and direction.
+1Well, looking at the drag view in the designer, it looks like there's some asymmetric drag, especially one point on the wingtip, one of the gear struts and the tires. I would go back and modify it via XML to "DragScale=0" on those parts. I would modify both of the parts on each side of the build. Also, I believe you can also set the drag to those parts using the Overload mod. After that, if it still rolls, I would put in a bit of weight on one side to balance it out.
+1Beautiful build, I have quite a bit of autoroll with this one, but it’s an impressive work, nonetheless.
+1@Tessemi well, no. An altitude indicator and an attitude indicator are two different things. An attitude indicator displays where the horizon is, so that you can climb, descend or bank without losing control when in the weather (clouds). An altitude indicator, also known as an altimeter, displays elevation above sea level. An altimeter looks more like a dial with spinning hands (sometimes a drum) over numbers displaying the altitude readout.
+1There was a reconnaissance version of the F-100, known as the RF-100, you could further modify this build to build that version.
+1Accurate weight, wing loadingand size. Performance down low is in the right neighborhood, though a bit fast up high (common SP problem).
+1Looks great! Actually, I rather like the Hellcat, right fighter at the right time, very successful in combination with USN fighter tactics, though today overshadowed somewhat by the Corsair. Vey emblematic of the time and circumstances.
+1The description is spot on straight out of the 50s! Execution is great as well, nice job, Sport!
+1Ok, this is great. I built something very similar to this a long time ago, but this one is better thought out and menacing—I especially like the canopy. One question, though...why didn’t you go full horizontal? I know, I know, they say, “never go full horizontal,” but it would have been cool if you had...
+1A little auto-roll and it's pretty nose heavy. But, you got the look right and I've never seen a T-1 here before, so, nice!
+1@F104Deathtrap, thanks for the support. Yeah, @Blue0Bull there was a little bit snarky, but it's ok, I'm not taking it personally. He has a point, albeit a snarky one; but bottom line, I did a little more research and asked around and discovered that, indeed, it is possible to make a working artificial horizon (though the pitch tends to display backwards unless you do a lot more work to the basic version).
+1Figured it out with a little help from some my friends on SPMC. Bottom line, it's possible, you just need to fix the reference (horizon line and/or hemispheres) to a free-spin rotator. The gyro then sits on the reference and the other end of the rotator is fixed to the build, or a second free-spin rotator if you want two axes. In any event, the other end of the last rotator is attached to the mounting point on the airplane.
+1Nice, reminds me of the Lansen, an older, but very good-looking bird. Also, very creative camo, I’m going to tag this as a favorite because I’ll need to remember how to do that on my next build!
+1Cool!
+1Nice build, unique subject!
+1Nice work.
+1Beautiful build but why’d you use magic fuel when everything else was so detailed and perfect?
+1