@AsteroidAsteroidTheBook yeah, like me. Screw PC culture, it’s an abomination and runs directly counter to free speech. It’s the idea that one must be polite, or suffer the consequences. Well, as a free human being, I should be able to express my thoughts and you should be individually free to disagree with me. In the past, before this stupid idea of Political Correctness evolved, the tend was to generally allow free thought, speech and expression. Those you disagreed with, you either told them so, or you simply avoided them. This was in line with “keeping polite company”. If someone decided to espouse controversial/reprehensible ideas, we simply disagreed and society moved on. Now, we shame them for simply thinking the “wrong” thing, no debate, no discussion. The kicker is that the idea of wrong or right is established by only one side with a single opinion and pushed on the rest of this with the mandate to “agree or die”. Disagreeing with things because they run counter to thousands of years of society, run counter to religious dictates, personal mores or standards or simply logic doesn’t necessarily make someone evil, it simply is a disagreement over an issue. A hallmark of a vibrant and just society is the free expression, exchange and debate of ideas in search of the truth. Ever heard “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?”. That’s no longer the mantra of today’s society and we are losing more freedom daily, a loss of free thought. And don’t kid yourself, this isn’t about truth...if so, PC culture wouldn’t seek to upend every standard or idea, but it does. It’s about power. As Pontius Pilate said: “What is truth?” What he meant is: “Who cares what the right thing is, as long as I have the power.”
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.
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.
@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.
Sorry about that. I’ve made it a habit whenever I’m done working for that day to post my build as an unlisted so that I can retrieve it and only lose a day’s work if I get the blue screen of death. It’s saved me a couple of times.
I have to agree with @asteroidbook345 ...clearly this is a joke forum post, but I’m sure the creator didn’t intend on his build being the butt of some stupid joke and may not even be back given the callous disregard with which he’s being treated. If you have a problem with what @Fairfirefight posted, suggest you confront directly and avoid bringing in some bystander who’s now just in the crossfire.
@brians1209 well, think of it in the inverse of how I explained it to you: a fuse section, when hollow or empty, will weigh roughly the same whether it’s open (see through) or capped on the ends. When you add dead weight (components or systems) or fuel, that section will weigh more, but it will no longer be see through. If you build as I like to, with an adherence to the RL aircraft weights and fuel amounts, using the stock parts and their stock weights, the builds turn out to be fairly close to the RL weights. Details throw off the numbers, but only a little. Hollow—or empty—fuselage sections weigh almost exactly what they should weigh if constructed conventionally in real life. I would not be in favor of modifying any of the fuselage weights because they just work, whether I’d left hollow or filled with fuel or ballast (though I’d tweak the fuel volume, which I’m convinced is just slightly off).
@Sm10684 engineering takes a bit of math in school, so be prepared to grind through that to get to where you want to get. Some of the best advice I heard was from an engineering department chair at UVA, who told us, “If you absolutely love math, be a mathematician. If you love building things and figuring out how they work, then get through the math to become an engineer.” I think that’s great advice.
You’re braver than I was at your age, I’d be worried about getting that thing back together, though this one does have a cracked block. Don’t ever be afraid about taking things apart to see how they work, even if they work perfectly well. If you are also fairly good at math, you should consider engineering as a future career choice. Now, if you really want to learn a lot about how that thing works, put it back together before you trash it.
@TrislandianAlliance, landing on speed should be accomplished on every type of landing, whether it’s in the boat or on a runway. On the boat, an on speed landing helps ensure you a. Don’t fall out of the sky prior to hitting the deck, b. That the hook engages a cable and c. The plane doesn’t break the wire on engagement. On land, landing on speed helps to ensure you a. Don’t fall out of the sky prior to hitting the ground, b. Land in the first 1/3 (or less) of the runway and c. Validates your landing data so that you don’t go rolling off the end of the runway while standing in the brakes. Every plane I’ve had the pleasure of flying has also had published evaluation standards which make sure pilots fly on speed on final—the U-2 has a 2 knot window of -0 to 2 knots fast for a no flap approach, the T-38 was something like -5 to 10 knots for a normal landing and the mighty Guppy stabilized approach criteria is only “momentary” deviations of -0 to 10 KIAS below 1000’ AFE. Seems tight, but when you use Autobrakes MAX on a 7,000 ft runway in gusty winds and your stopping distance is more than 6,500 ft, you’d best land on speed in the touchdown zone, otherwise you’re going to surprise all the pax in the back of the jet when you have to go around or while 4 wheeling off the end of the runway. So, yeah, regardless of the runway, land on speed.
Damper on the shocks of your custom gear and lots of it, whatever it takes 200%, 300% or 1700%. This reduces your landing gear’s “springiness” and resultant gear rebound. @brians1209 that’s not a solution that’s practical for every build. Many builds don’t have drag chutes, pilot technique varies greatly (especially here) and simply not landing fast doesn’t necessarily reduce bounce, and not even a hard touchdown guarantees a bounce. However, even for experienced pilots, the gear has to provide a moderate degree of shock absorption (or more, if landing on the boat), which requires higher damper values. Considering these factors and reading your advice, I would like to suggest you reassess your “very slow” landing speed and change your advice to “try and land ON speed”. If you’re consistently bouncing, you’re right, you’re probably landing fast.
Flies great, good weapons, interesting features, lots of FT carpentry went into this one. What I really want, though, is that Swedish version, exactly as depicted in the thumbnail, because that looks awesome!
Well, this video brings up as many questions as answers for me. I have to pause the vid to read the text boxes, as they aren’t on screen long enough to really digest the information. My biggest questions on your technique are as follows: Why do you have a separate cruise engine that activates after takeoff? Why not just reduce your build’s drag? An alternative/additional method is to use FT to duplicate the ram air effect, adding a bit of thrust at higher speeds. You could also use a/the same FT formula to further reduce engine power at higher altitudes. Also, why only activate your afterburner above a certain speed? IRL, afterburners light up whenever the throttle is pushed up into the MAX detent(s), they are not speed dependent. Lastly, I use the fuselage parts, the fuel weight itself and then I might resort to using dead weight—the dead weight modifiable in every fuselage piece, not a part specifically placed to simulate deadweight—to balance out the build. I don’t typically add a block solely for deadweight and I never use a fuel tank, as most RL aircraft have fuel distributed around the aircraft (mostly in the central area of the fuse and the wings). Moving the fuel around the build allows one to use it for balance while also placing it approximately where it would be IRL. Your technique simplifies this so much it isn’t possible to realistically duplicate these things.
Well, this is quite the first build, for any builder. There are things you might have done differently, which comes with experience, but performance is reasonable (roll rate should be a tad faster, but that’s just nitpicking), takeoff and landing behavior is controllable...I could even land it on the boat, which is notoriously difficult in SP. I’m not a fan of the pilot figure, but, meh, personal choice and nothing wrong with that. Great build, welcome to the community!
It’s almost impossible to make a good Starfighter in this game due to the fact it relied heavily on high lift devices, such as the bleed air system and, well, the flaps themselves, which can’t be adequately duplicated in SP. However, this one does capture the lunatic speed associated with the 104, it actually turns well enough (like the real jet and unlike most others around here). I do like it and the semi cockpit is nice with a good cockpit view.
I have to commend your approach to this. I never commented on your original post, though I whole heartily agree that ortho view looks terrible and I would never, ever use it for any post. However, you didn’t simply dismiss those who disagreed with you and I, you went out and built a solution, though it is a complex one, for those people who had valid concerns and who actually liked the ortho view. The hope, of course, is that the SP2 Devs will see this and incorporate an improved/better FOV for posts. Class act, really, bravo.
What’s ironic was that the F-20, which in itself was really an improved F-5E, was powered by the same engine as the twin engine F-18, the GE F404 turbofan.
@ChisP the fact of the matter is that if you have more followers, you get more upvotes, whether your build is actually any good or not. The good thing is that the more good builds you make, the more followers you will get, and so on and so on. Look at BogdanX, he builds some great aircraft consistently and has a ton of followers for it, but it took awhile for him to get there...we discuss this all the time in my Discord group and can't believe the disparity sometimes. Screenshots, working cockpits and the fact that many upvote based purely on the post, without actually flying the build, all conspire to keep good builders down. But shoddy builders very rarely rise to Bog's level. If you stick with it...and you only have 5,500 pts., you'll develop even more skills and gain more followers and get more points, on and on. It just takes time, it really does. I myself only have two builds that have broken 100 upvotes, the F-100 and the EF132. Some builds that weren't that hard (USAF Insignia Pack) got far more points than other builds I thought were much, much better. There's no rhyme or reason sometimes, but your long term reputation is really based on the quality of your builds as opposed to just one ultra successful build or a lot of crap builds. You're going in the correct direction and, again, 88 upvotes isn't bad, not at all. My F-105 only has 88 upvotes and I have far, far more followers, so you're not doing badly at all at this stage!
Ok, let me say...EXCELLENT MiG-21. My review has minor critiques for how I might have done a few things differently, but I might do some changes and post an unlisted for you to take a look at...but they're minor points. First, you prioritize the flight model over the actual construction, great decision and what I would have done as well. The flight model is excellent, this flies like a real high performance jet without stupid tricks such as unlimited fuel or huge power multipliers on the engine...I have 4,000+ hrs of flight time, including 500+ hrs in this class of jet and it really captures the feel. It's fast on landing, at around 200 KIAS on final, but so was the real thing. It turns right about the right rate and flies more of less at the correct speeds (very tough to get this aspect exactly right in SP). You also use the symmetric wing...nice! That gives it the most correct flight characteristics, instead of using the flat bottom wing, which I do not like at all. I would have given it far more nose up trim authority, as I have to hold constant back stick on final at 200 knots, but I know you were going for precision on the trim input and it's not horribly out of trim on final. As for the construction...Well, I'd make more complex wings, instead of the stock units and the tires stick out the sides when the gear is retracted(!). But the build vs. the flight model prioritization is very well thought out. Despite the fact you've simplified some things to keep the part count fairly low, I think this is probably the best Fishbed I've seen. All the others either look slightly better, but fly horribly or fly ok and don't look as good. I'll say it now: Best MiG-21 I've seen on site!
The build looks good. I too have built a Viggen and they’re not easy. As for your flight model, you have 10,000 plus drag points. If you lowered the drag points by either “dragScale=0” or “calculateDrag=False”, that would allow you to not use such a high power multiplier on your engine, keep the acceleration more realistic and allow the jet to bleed energy in turns, which would also be more realistic. You could do this, you’re on PC, correct?
@edensk yeah, I’m really sorry about that, it seems that both “calculateDrag=false” AND “dragScale=0” have to be set, otherwise assemblies can create drag even if one of the two properties are set to zero drag. It’s some sort of SP glitch that I haven’t worked through yet.
An interesting build; you build as many land vehicles as aircraft, yet the flight model is pretty good. There are many builders here who should have made their flight models as convincing, yet didn’t, even though their part counts are four times as many as what you’ve used here. I took off with 30% power, as I do when I evaluate builds, to see what the actually rotate and takeoff speeds are...here it’s around 120 KIAS rotate with a 135 KIAS takeoff speed. Acceleration at full throttle is a bit too swift, as it is for all SP builds with too much power or multipliers on the engine...I know the J50 isn’t as shmexy as the big BFE, but it would help acceleration, lower fuel consumption and allow a more realistic fuel load. Currently, your 15,000 lb. jet has nearly 11,000 lbs. of fuel. It does a full turn at 500 KIAS in around 11.5 seconds, which is probably 11 Gs...more than what it should, and it certainly has excess wing area, probably twice as much, but maneuverability is plausible as planes are always designed with a maneuverability reserve and the pilot would simply look at the G meter and pull so as to maximize performance without over G-ing the airframe or blacking out. It lands really nicely, final approach is comfortably flown at 130 KIAS, which is realistic and everything is well controlled. I’d Spotlight this but you have more points than I do...however, I’ll upvote a creation with a good flight model as this one a hundred times before upvoting an 1,800 part jet that won’t rotate and leave the ground. Nice insignia, BTW. Nice work!
Nice build of the Farmer. First supersonic fighter? There’s actually quite a bit of controversy there...the F-100 entered squadron service on 27 Sep 1954, while the MiG-19 entered service June of 1955. Nonetheless, they both had many teething issues early on due to a steep learning curve with supersonic flight. And they both went on to become significant and important types on their respective sides of the Iron Curtain. The MiG-19, as with most Soviet types, rugged, as well as fast, well armed and had great turn performance. The MiG-19 was the backbone of the PLAAF as the J-6 and Chuck Yeager, of all people, helped the Pakistan AF integrate the AIM-9 into its J-6s(!). Anyway, nice build.
A very laborious and complex reload system—just like the real thing...nice, two thumbs up. It’s fun, but like the real thing, takes a little practice to get right. I can see why ships went to the VLSs instead, much more efficient. However, if you want to build an OHP or California class cruiser, you need this. I’m surprised I haven’t seen something like this before, because this arm type of launcher was very common up to the early Ticonderoga class cruisers. However, people around here tend to build fictional or Soviet ships with VLSs, not Cold War era US Navy ships. Perhaps this build will convince them to do so in the future. Nice work.
Flap lever is reversed, it accelerates like Hammy the Squirrel after a Red Bull and stops on a dime after landing (I’m sure the RL example doesn’t stop like that). But, it rolls, turns and flies fairly realistically (except for the acceleration) and it looks great...nice, upvote from me.
@RicardoAs1515 yeah, think we’re talking past one another, because that doesn’t really make a lot of sense. Anyhow, let me just say this more clearly: When one shoots down another aircraft in combat, it’s called a “kill”...not “murder”, as in, “the ace had five kills.” You don’t say, “the ace had five murders.” Besides the fact it’s grammatically incorrect, using the term “murder” has a totally different connotation, unless you intend on making the point that this particular shoot down was an unjustified killing as opposed to a combat kill.
@spefyjerbf well, there was no reason the gear would have collapsed on touchdown...that part was within normal parameters. However the right gear DID collapse when they left the runway, which is why the right wingtip ends up in the snow. What happened here is that the landing spoilers did not deploy as they should have on touchdown, that would have dumped the lift from the wing and produced the drag expected upon landing and the plane probably would have landed and exited normally. Sadly, what probably happened here is that the crew probably didn’t run the before landing checklist properly and didn’t arm the spoilers for landing.
Not bad...better than mine from 3 years ago. Also, nice job on the camo paint. Not many people know the story of the heroism of the Argentine pilots...they deserved better than they got.
There’s something about this build I really like...perhaps it’s the shape of the vertical stab, or the way the dorsal spine is integrated into the overall shape of the jet. Maybe it’s the fun, but not ridiculous, flight performance. Whatever it is, nice work.
@JohnnyBoythePilot that’s because @Leehopard’s build used scales wing surfaces which weren’t actually in the tilting wing...the scaled down wings were in the fuse, I believe and he used additional wing surfaces hidden in the nose which acted as additional elevator surfaces...those were connected to the AG which tilted the variable incidence wing. The additional elevators in the nose tilted up as well and “increased” the total lift of the build...that’s a simplified explanation, but you get the idea. I’ll discuss it with him as we’re both in the SPMC Discord chat.
Nice attempt at the F-8. Unfortunately, SP dynamics and the reverse trim control makes it nearly unlandable with the wing incidence deployed. It lands fine with the wing faired.
@HarryBen47 hey, vive le France and all that, my advice is: do what you want to, but the “C-47” designation is confusing to the English speakers on the site, which form the majority of people who will upvote your creation. By the way, c’est magnifique!
Yeah, might want to change it to something other than “C-47”...which indicates to most in the know that it’s a Skytrain. That’s what I expected to see when I opened this.
@jamesPLANESii 2.5 Gs is the G limit to which the jet is certified and where we operate the airplane. Realistically, if flown correctly, we experience only 1.5 Gs max during a typical flight. We’re also conscious of the Va (maneuvering speed), which is the max speed at which you can make a full and abrupt control input and not damage the aircraft. For the -700, that speed is 250 knots at sea level up to 298 knots at 31,000’ and the MAX has a Va of 292 knots at sea level up to 328 knots at 32,000’ feet. If going faster than those speeds, if a pilot were to pull abruptly full aft on the yoke, the jet WOULD pull more than 2.5 Gs and structural damage would likely result. So it’s a structural limit, as it is for most aircraft. For fighter aircraft, we never paid attention to “Va”, as that’s a civil term, instead we knew the G limits for the airframe...5.8 to 7.33 (symmetric) Gs for the T-38, depending on fuel weight...and had a G meter and we didn’t pull beyond the limits (yes, there was a bit of thinking going on while yanking around on the stick). We also knew from Section 5 of the -1 (flight manual) that .8-.95M was the “G overshoot” range where a small, fast pull of the stick would instantly over G the jet. That was structural as well and over Gs required, at min, an inspection to determine the jet wasn’t damaged.
Only if you’re prepared to get 1/4 of the upvotes you currently get. Some vote on both form and function, but those are, sadly, the vast minority. I’ll upvote quite a few creations, though they might not be perfect, but I save my Spotlights for the very best builds and I definitely wring those out flying them before I do so. But to restrict upvotes to only those builds you’ve downloaded? That would put too much of the onus on the casual player.
Though I’m going to avoid hyperbole here, I do like this build. Very efficient in your part count, nice, not ridiculous performance and accurate lines are the highlights of this build. It’s very enjoyable to toy around with on my iPhone. Nice work.
I’m upvoting this primarily because this is great work for a new builder and you seem to be enthusiastic about improving and about SP in general. I would recommend, in addition to what has already been said below, that you study the Phantom’s flight model. Your build simply does not turn...if this was RL, it might be pulling 1 1/2 - 2 Gs. The RL Phantom can sustain 6 Gs and pulls a max of 8.5 Gs (most models). Though it doesn’t turn like an F-16, it doesn’t “not turn” as many here may tell you. Most builders in SP really tone down maneuverability of certain builds—such as the F-4—but it’s actually not realistic. It looks really good, though, and I’ll test fly any build you create, if you would like.
@Aerofy nice explanation of what we call a “stall”. However, low airspeed doesn’t necessarily cause a stall. I can push over to 1/2 G and my stall speed will decrease significantly, so airspeed alone doesn’t cause a wing to stall, it is, as you first said, exceedance of the critical AoA. If I’m in that 1/2 G pushover at a speed below the published 1 G stall speed—the speed during level flight that will result in exceeding the critical AoA—I can be flying fine. But if I then pull the stick back and try and maintain level flight, the wing will immediately stall.
@AsteroidAsteroidTheBook yeah, like me. Screw PC culture, it’s an abomination and runs directly counter to free speech. It’s the idea that one must be polite, or suffer the consequences. Well, as a free human being, I should be able to express my thoughts and you should be individually free to disagree with me. In the past, before this stupid idea of Political Correctness evolved, the tend was to generally allow free thought, speech and expression. Those you disagreed with, you either told them so, or you simply avoided them. This was in line with “keeping polite company”. If someone decided to espouse controversial/reprehensible ideas, we simply disagreed and society moved on. Now, we shame them for simply thinking the “wrong” thing, no debate, no discussion. The kicker is that the idea of wrong or right is established by only one side with a single opinion and pushed on the rest of this with the mandate to “agree or die”. Disagreeing with things because they run counter to thousands of years of society, run counter to religious dictates, personal mores or standards or simply logic doesn’t necessarily make someone evil, it simply is a disagreement over an issue. A hallmark of a vibrant and just society is the free expression, exchange and debate of ideas in search of the truth. Ever heard “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?”. That’s no longer the mantra of today’s society and we are losing more freedom daily, a loss of free thought. And don’t kid yourself, this isn’t about truth...if so, PC culture wouldn’t seek to upend every standard or idea, but it does. It’s about power. As Pontius Pilate said: “What is truth?” What he meant is: “Who cares what the right thing is, as long as I have the power.”
+2Mirage F1.
+2IRL, 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.
+2Is 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@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.
+2Sorry about that. I’ve made it a habit whenever I’m done working for that day to post my build as an unlisted so that I can retrieve it and only lose a day’s work if I get the blue screen of death. It’s saved me a couple of times.
+2I have to agree with @asteroidbook345 ...clearly this is a joke forum post, but I’m sure the creator didn’t intend on his build being the butt of some stupid joke and may not even be back given the callous disregard with which he’s being treated. If you have a problem with what @Fairfirefight posted, suggest you confront directly and avoid bringing in some bystander who’s now just in the crossfire.
+2@brians1209 well, think of it in the inverse of how I explained it to you: a fuse section, when hollow or empty, will weigh roughly the same whether it’s open (see through) or capped on the ends. When you add dead weight (components or systems) or fuel, that section will weigh more, but it will no longer be see through. If you build as I like to, with an adherence to the RL aircraft weights and fuel amounts, using the stock parts and their stock weights, the builds turn out to be fairly close to the RL weights. Details throw off the numbers, but only a little. Hollow—or empty—fuselage sections weigh almost exactly what they should weigh if constructed conventionally in real life. I would not be in favor of modifying any of the fuselage weights because they just work, whether I’d left hollow or filled with fuel or ballast (though I’d tweak the fuel volume, which I’m convinced is just slightly off).
+2Huh! Simple(ish) Eagle...not bad. I volunteer to test fly any of your upcoming builds, tag me the next time on an unlisted build.
+2@Sm10684 engineering takes a bit of math in school, so be prepared to grind through that to get to where you want to get. Some of the best advice I heard was from an engineering department chair at UVA, who told us, “If you absolutely love math, be a mathematician. If you love building things and figuring out how they work, then get through the math to become an engineer.” I think that’s great advice.
+2You’re braver than I was at your age, I’d be worried about getting that thing back together, though this one does have a cracked block. Don’t ever be afraid about taking things apart to see how they work, even if they work perfectly well. If you are also fairly good at math, you should consider engineering as a future career choice. Now, if you really want to learn a lot about how that thing works, put it back together before you trash it.
+2@TrislandianAlliance, landing on speed should be accomplished on every type of landing, whether it’s in the boat or on a runway. On the boat, an on speed landing helps ensure you a. Don’t fall out of the sky prior to hitting the deck, b. That the hook engages a cable and c. The plane doesn’t break the wire on engagement. On land, landing on speed helps to ensure you a. Don’t fall out of the sky prior to hitting the ground, b. Land in the first 1/3 (or less) of the runway and c. Validates your landing data so that you don’t go rolling off the end of the runway while standing in the brakes. Every plane I’ve had the pleasure of flying has also had published evaluation standards which make sure pilots fly on speed on final—the U-2 has a 2 knot window of -0 to 2 knots fast for a no flap approach, the T-38 was something like -5 to 10 knots for a normal landing and the mighty Guppy stabilized approach criteria is only “momentary” deviations of -0 to 10 KIAS below 1000’ AFE. Seems tight, but when you use Autobrakes MAX on a 7,000 ft runway in gusty winds and your stopping distance is more than 6,500 ft, you’d best land on speed in the touchdown zone, otherwise you’re going to surprise all the pax in the back of the jet when you have to go around or while 4 wheeling off the end of the runway. So, yeah, regardless of the runway, land on speed.
+2Damper on the shocks of your custom gear and lots of it, whatever it takes 200%, 300% or 1700%. This reduces your landing gear’s “springiness” and resultant gear rebound. @brians1209 that’s not a solution that’s practical for every build. Many builds don’t have drag chutes, pilot technique varies greatly (especially here) and simply not landing fast doesn’t necessarily reduce bounce, and not even a hard touchdown guarantees a bounce. However, even for experienced pilots, the gear has to provide a moderate degree of shock absorption (or more, if landing on the boat), which requires higher damper values. Considering these factors and reading your advice, I would like to suggest you reassess your “very slow” landing speed and change your advice to “try and land ON speed”. If you’re consistently bouncing, you’re right, you’re probably landing fast.
+2Flies great, good weapons, interesting features, lots of FT carpentry went into this one. What I really want, though, is that Swedish version, exactly as depicted in the thumbnail, because that looks awesome!
+2Well, this video brings up as many questions as answers for me. I have to pause the vid to read the text boxes, as they aren’t on screen long enough to really digest the information. My biggest questions on your technique are as follows: Why do you have a separate cruise engine that activates after takeoff? Why not just reduce your build’s drag? An alternative/additional method is to use FT to duplicate the ram air effect, adding a bit of thrust at higher speeds. You could also use a/the same FT formula to further reduce engine power at higher altitudes. Also, why only activate your afterburner above a certain speed? IRL, afterburners light up whenever the throttle is pushed up into the MAX detent(s), they are not speed dependent. Lastly, I use the fuselage parts, the fuel weight itself and then I might resort to using dead weight—the dead weight modifiable in every fuselage piece, not a part specifically placed to simulate deadweight—to balance out the build. I don’t typically add a block solely for deadweight and I never use a fuel tank, as most RL aircraft have fuel distributed around the aircraft (mostly in the central area of the fuse and the wings). Moving the fuel around the build allows one to use it for balance while also placing it approximately where it would be IRL. Your technique simplifies this so much it isn’t possible to realistically duplicate these things.
+2Bruh!!!! This SOOOO Tite!!!!!! Yu r a MASTERRRR!!! This is litrally da ausommest lowrida seen on da syte!!! Better dan any plain!!!
+2Well, this is quite the first build, for any builder. There are things you might have done differently, which comes with experience, but performance is reasonable (roll rate should be a tad faster, but that’s just nitpicking), takeoff and landing behavior is controllable...I could even land it on the boat, which is notoriously difficult in SP. I’m not a fan of the pilot figure, but, meh, personal choice and nothing wrong with that. Great build, welcome to the community!
+2It’s almost impossible to make a good Starfighter in this game due to the fact it relied heavily on high lift devices, such as the bleed air system and, well, the flaps themselves, which can’t be adequately duplicated in SP. However, this one does capture the lunatic speed associated with the 104, it actually turns well enough (like the real jet and unlike most others around here). I do like it and the semi cockpit is nice with a good cockpit view.
+2Looks like a B-36 with the engines flipped.
+2I have to commend your approach to this. I never commented on your original post, though I whole heartily agree that ortho view looks terrible and I would never, ever use it for any post. However, you didn’t simply dismiss those who disagreed with you and I, you went out and built a solution, though it is a complex one, for those people who had valid concerns and who actually liked the ortho view. The hope, of course, is that the SP2 Devs will see this and incorporate an improved/better FOV for posts. Class act, really, bravo.
+2What’s ironic was that the F-20, which in itself was really an improved F-5E, was powered by the same engine as the twin engine F-18, the GE F404 turbofan.
+2@ChisP the fact of the matter is that if you have more followers, you get more upvotes, whether your build is actually any good or not. The good thing is that the more good builds you make, the more followers you will get, and so on and so on. Look at BogdanX, he builds some great aircraft consistently and has a ton of followers for it, but it took awhile for him to get there...we discuss this all the time in my Discord group and can't believe the disparity sometimes. Screenshots, working cockpits and the fact that many upvote based purely on the post, without actually flying the build, all conspire to keep good builders down. But shoddy builders very rarely rise to Bog's level. If you stick with it...and you only have 5,500 pts., you'll develop even more skills and gain more followers and get more points, on and on. It just takes time, it really does. I myself only have two builds that have broken 100 upvotes, the F-100 and the EF132. Some builds that weren't that hard (USAF Insignia Pack) got far more points than other builds I thought were much, much better. There's no rhyme or reason sometimes, but your long term reputation is really based on the quality of your builds as opposed to just one ultra successful build or a lot of crap builds. You're going in the correct direction and, again, 88 upvotes isn't bad, not at all. My F-105 only has 88 upvotes and I have far, far more followers, so you're not doing badly at all at this stage!
+2Ok, let me say...EXCELLENT MiG-21. My review has minor critiques for how I might have done a few things differently, but I might do some changes and post an unlisted for you to take a look at...but they're minor points. First, you prioritize the flight model over the actual construction, great decision and what I would have done as well. The flight model is excellent, this flies like a real high performance jet without stupid tricks such as unlimited fuel or huge power multipliers on the engine...I have 4,000+ hrs of flight time, including 500+ hrs in this class of jet and it really captures the feel. It's fast on landing, at around 200 KIAS on final, but so was the real thing. It turns right about the right rate and flies more of less at the correct speeds (very tough to get this aspect exactly right in SP). You also use the symmetric wing...nice! That gives it the most correct flight characteristics, instead of using the flat bottom wing, which I do not like at all. I would have given it far more nose up trim authority, as I have to hold constant back stick on final at 200 knots, but I know you were going for precision on the trim input and it's not horribly out of trim on final. As for the construction...Well, I'd make more complex wings, instead of the stock units and the tires stick out the sides when the gear is retracted(!). But the build vs. the flight model prioritization is very well thought out. Despite the fact you've simplified some things to keep the part count fairly low, I think this is probably the best Fishbed I've seen. All the others either look slightly better, but fly horribly or fly ok and don't look as good. I'll say it now: Best MiG-21 I've seen on site!
+2The build looks good. I too have built a Viggen and they’re not easy. As for your flight model, you have 10,000 plus drag points. If you lowered the drag points by either “dragScale=0” or “calculateDrag=False”, that would allow you to not use such a high power multiplier on your engine, keep the acceleration more realistic and allow the jet to bleed energy in turns, which would also be more realistic. You could do this, you’re on PC, correct?
+2@edensk yeah, I’m really sorry about that, it seems that both “calculateDrag=false” AND “dragScale=0” have to be set, otherwise assemblies can create drag even if one of the two properties are set to zero drag. It’s some sort of SP glitch that I haven’t worked through yet.
+2An interesting build; you build as many land vehicles as aircraft, yet the flight model is pretty good. There are many builders here who should have made their flight models as convincing, yet didn’t, even though their part counts are four times as many as what you’ve used here. I took off with 30% power, as I do when I evaluate builds, to see what the actually rotate and takeoff speeds are...here it’s around 120 KIAS rotate with a 135 KIAS takeoff speed. Acceleration at full throttle is a bit too swift, as it is for all SP builds with too much power or multipliers on the engine...I know the J50 isn’t as shmexy as the big BFE, but it would help acceleration, lower fuel consumption and allow a more realistic fuel load. Currently, your 15,000 lb. jet has nearly 11,000 lbs. of fuel. It does a full turn at 500 KIAS in around 11.5 seconds, which is probably 11 Gs...more than what it should, and it certainly has excess wing area, probably twice as much, but maneuverability is plausible as planes are always designed with a maneuverability reserve and the pilot would simply look at the G meter and pull so as to maximize performance without over G-ing the airframe or blacking out. It lands really nicely, final approach is comfortably flown at 130 KIAS, which is realistic and everything is well controlled. I’d Spotlight this but you have more points than I do...however, I’ll upvote a creation with a good flight model as this one a hundred times before upvoting an 1,800 part jet that won’t rotate and leave the ground. Nice insignia, BTW. Nice work!
+2Nice build of the Farmer. First supersonic fighter? There’s actually quite a bit of controversy there...the F-100 entered squadron service on 27 Sep 1954, while the MiG-19 entered service June of 1955. Nonetheless, they both had many teething issues early on due to a steep learning curve with supersonic flight. And they both went on to become significant and important types on their respective sides of the Iron Curtain. The MiG-19, as with most Soviet types, rugged, as well as fast, well armed and had great turn performance. The MiG-19 was the backbone of the PLAAF as the J-6 and Chuck Yeager, of all people, helped the Pakistan AF integrate the AIM-9 into its J-6s(!). Anyway, nice build.
+2Beautiful jet, handles very nicely, controls are well harmonized. Great build!
+2A very laborious and complex reload system—just like the real thing...nice, two thumbs up. It’s fun, but like the real thing, takes a little practice to get right. I can see why ships went to the VLSs instead, much more efficient. However, if you want to build an OHP or California class cruiser, you need this. I’m surprised I haven’t seen something like this before, because this arm type of launcher was very common up to the early Ticonderoga class cruisers. However, people around here tend to build fictional or Soviet ships with VLSs, not Cold War era US Navy ships. Perhaps this build will convince them to do so in the future. Nice work.
+2Flap lever is reversed, it accelerates like Hammy the Squirrel after a Red Bull and stops on a dime after landing (I’m sure the RL example doesn’t stop like that). But, it rolls, turns and flies fairly realistically (except for the acceleration) and it looks great...nice, upvote from me.
+2@RicardoAs1515 yeah, think we’re talking past one another, because that doesn’t really make a lot of sense. Anyhow, let me just say this more clearly: When one shoots down another aircraft in combat, it’s called a “kill”...not “murder”, as in, “the ace had five kills.” You don’t say, “the ace had five murders.” Besides the fact it’s grammatically incorrect, using the term “murder” has a totally different connotation, unless you intend on making the point that this particular shoot down was an unjustified killing as opposed to a combat kill.
+2Nice build...pero, "murder" significa "asesinato"...la palabra corecta es "kill", que significa mas "matar en combate".
+2@LeonardoEngineering you may ask for my input at any time. Glad to help.
+2@spefyjerbf well, there was no reason the gear would have collapsed on touchdown...that part was within normal parameters. However the right gear DID collapse when they left the runway, which is why the right wingtip ends up in the snow. What happened here is that the landing spoilers did not deploy as they should have on touchdown, that would have dumped the lift from the wing and produced the drag expected upon landing and the plane probably would have landed and exited normally. Sadly, what probably happened here is that the crew probably didn’t run the before landing checklist properly and didn’t arm the spoilers for landing.
+2Not bad...better than mine from 3 years ago. Also, nice job on the camo paint. Not many people know the story of the heroism of the Argentine pilots...they deserved better than they got.
+2There’s something about this build I really like...perhaps it’s the shape of the vertical stab, or the way the dorsal spine is integrated into the overall shape of the jet. Maybe it’s the fun, but not ridiculous, flight performance. Whatever it is, nice work.
+2Nice build, it turns fairly quickly, probably pulls 12 G or so. I feel bad for the pilot trainee, as he’ll be a lump of goo after his first flight...
+2@JohnnyBoythePilot that’s because @Leehopard’s build used scales wing surfaces which weren’t actually in the tilting wing...the scaled down wings were in the fuse, I believe and he used additional wing surfaces hidden in the nose which acted as additional elevator surfaces...those were connected to the AG which tilted the variable incidence wing. The additional elevators in the nose tilted up as well and “increased” the total lift of the build...that’s a simplified explanation, but you get the idea. I’ll discuss it with him as we’re both in the SPMC Discord chat.
+2Nice attempt at the F-8. Unfortunately, SP dynamics and the reverse trim control makes it nearly unlandable with the wing incidence deployed. It lands fine with the wing faired.
+2Very cool, and that's quite the description! Your platinum build, congrats!
+2@HarryBen47 hey, vive le France and all that, my advice is: do what you want to, but the “C-47” designation is confusing to the English speakers on the site, which form the majority of people who will upvote your creation. By the way, c’est magnifique!
+2Yeah, might want to change it to something other than “C-47”...which indicates to most in the know that it’s a Skytrain. That’s what I expected to see when I opened this.
+2This is why aircraft that fly at high altitudes are pressurized.
+2@jamesPLANESii yes, potentially...thats another SP limitation...over Gs aren’t simulated.
+2@jamesPLANESii 2.5 Gs is the G limit to which the jet is certified and where we operate the airplane. Realistically, if flown correctly, we experience only 1.5 Gs max during a typical flight. We’re also conscious of the Va (maneuvering speed), which is the max speed at which you can make a full and abrupt control input and not damage the aircraft. For the -700, that speed is 250 knots at sea level up to 298 knots at 31,000’ and the MAX has a Va of 292 knots at sea level up to 328 knots at 32,000’ feet. If going faster than those speeds, if a pilot were to pull abruptly full aft on the yoke, the jet WOULD pull more than 2.5 Gs and structural damage would likely result. So it’s a structural limit, as it is for most aircraft. For fighter aircraft, we never paid attention to “Va”, as that’s a civil term, instead we knew the G limits for the airframe...5.8 to 7.33 (symmetric) Gs for the T-38, depending on fuel weight...and had a G meter and we didn’t pull beyond the limits (yes, there was a bit of thinking going on while yanking around on the stick). We also knew from Section 5 of the -1 (flight manual) that .8-.95M was the “G overshoot” range where a small, fast pull of the stick would instantly over G the jet. That was structural as well and over Gs required, at min, an inspection to determine the jet wasn’t damaged.
+2Only if you’re prepared to get 1/4 of the upvotes you currently get. Some vote on both form and function, but those are, sadly, the vast minority. I’ll upvote quite a few creations, though they might not be perfect, but I save my Spotlights for the very best builds and I definitely wring those out flying them before I do so. But to restrict upvotes to only those builds you’ve downloaded? That would put too much of the onus on the casual player.
+2Though I’m going to avoid hyperbole here, I do like this build. Very efficient in your part count, nice, not ridiculous performance and accurate lines are the highlights of this build. It’s very enjoyable to toy around with on my iPhone. Nice work.
+2I’m upvoting this primarily because this is great work for a new builder and you seem to be enthusiastic about improving and about SP in general. I would recommend, in addition to what has already been said below, that you study the Phantom’s flight model. Your build simply does not turn...if this was RL, it might be pulling 1 1/2 - 2 Gs. The RL Phantom can sustain 6 Gs and pulls a max of 8.5 Gs (most models). Though it doesn’t turn like an F-16, it doesn’t “not turn” as many here may tell you. Most builders in SP really tone down maneuverability of certain builds—such as the F-4—but it’s actually not realistic. It looks really good, though, and I’ll test fly any build you create, if you would like.
+2Great insight on this. The realization that the wing generates drag when moving and thus a push force was something everyone else had missed.
+2@Aerofy nice explanation of what we call a “stall”. However, low airspeed doesn’t necessarily cause a stall. I can push over to 1/2 G and my stall speed will decrease significantly, so airspeed alone doesn’t cause a wing to stall, it is, as you first said, exceedance of the critical AoA. If I’m in that 1/2 G pushover at a speed below the published 1 G stall speed—the speed during level flight that will result in exceeding the critical AoA—I can be flying fine. But if I then pull the stick back and try and maintain level flight, the wing will immediately stall.
+2