You know, this is not only an outstanding build in terms of accuracy, precision and flying qualities...it was funny reading @BogdanX’s comments, they were exactly what I was thinking...but I have to say, it’s a very elegant build, what you’ve managed to achieve with a relatively few parts is outstanding. Some people trying this build may have done some pretty stupid things, like, say, putting a hidden jet engine in the fuse to get the proper speed, unlimited fuel, overpowered engines, etc. I’ve seen all of that, but you manage to avoid anything stupid...very well done, IMHO!
I noticed a couple things on your build. First, nice LG, great details. Second was the flaps, which create a nose up/down effect and the trim being set to roll...I can only assume you are having, or have had, issues with autoroll on the build you’re working. IF you are trying to counter autoroll on your builds there are better ways of doing so. The way I’ve described (flaps for pitch trim, ailerons to counter autoroll) works, but it leaves you with a build that relies on using flaps throughout the speed range, which is highly unrealistic as flaps create a lot of drag in RL. Flaps simply aren’t used at high speeds unless it’s a U-2 in “gust up”. There are two main sources of autoroll: unbalanced weight—which affects builds much more than it would do so in RL and uneven drag. The good news is that, often, 50-100 lbs of dead weight in a wing root will often cure the first problem and inserting “dragscale=0” into the XML file will eliminate drag for details on your plane. Of course, I may be assuming a lot here and may be that you’re not doing any of these things...in that case, nice build.
Ok, this is FANTASTIC work—you are definitely NOT a noob! The flying dynamics are probably the best bush plane I’ve flown here on site...it actually flies like a real bush plane, maneuverable but stable, slow...I actually was able to roll it onto one wheel and hold off the other wheel, simply amazing. You have a new follower, who also has 4,000+ hrs of pilot time, so I ought to know.
Some nice detail work here, looks like a Lincoln, so that’s good. Really needs longer main gear, first, the RL plane had longer main gear, but also, there’s not enough angle to take off—my flight test revealed a takeoff speed of 240 mph—about as fast as a fully laden F-105. Flies appropriately well, though it DESPERATELY needs trim. Nose dives unless you hold aft pressure to keep it up. I swear, does anyone fly these builds? A for effort, it’s a learning process and here’s an upvote.
@EngineerOtaku as for cost...IF (and that’s a big IF...I worked several budget cycles on the ACC Staff at Langley, and no one, I mean no one can make sense of actual costs. Lifecycle cost, acquisition cost, BOS cost, all this things are mixed and matched to present the lowest possible dollar amount when competing for funding), I estimate that the USAF could have bought approximately 1.1 F-23s for the cost of an F-22. If the F-22 was the least expensive platform, I estimate that the USAF could have afforded only .9 F-23s for the cost of an F-22. “Less costly” is measured in percents, not whole numbers. It would be wildly inaccurate to assume we might have afforded 2 or 3 F-23s for the cost of a Raptor.
@randomusername besides, "autopitch" isn't a thing, changing aerodynamic forces induced with speed changes results in the nose rising or falling as the aircraft attempts to gain or lose airspeed IAW the current trim setting. That's why, when I add power without changing the trim setting, the nose rises, the aircraft continues to fly at the same airspeed, but climbs, exchanging the extra energy from the thrust increase to increased altitude.
I like the look and clean lines a lot. Some nice features and obvious you did some good work here. Performance/flying characteristics pretty good...except for slight auto-roll that gets worse with speed. There are ways of correcting that, of course. Nice overall.
That’s not a flat spin. What that is is a hammerhead stall at the top and entry into a conventional spin. A flat spin is...guess what? Flat! What that means is that the fuse remains level, or close to level, with the horizon while it rotates around the yaw axis. By the way, flat spins are typically undesirable as they are difficult to recover from. Nice entry and recovery, though.
Beautiful build, nice attention to the performance, great views and features...but, wow, is it touchy! Very difficult to control in the landing flare, likes to roll a lot!
Well, interesting build. Lots of well thought-out details and custom gear, no less. You could do without the infinite fuel (though a fictional build, pilots are constantly trained to be aware of their fuel), it has a bit of autoroll (the bane of many a builder) and I would suggest you go with drag reduction instead of just multiplying the engine power (it would help make the acceleration more realistic).
@RedRoosterII I don’t think so. It’s a pretty old post. I still build this way, though, as autoroll spoils great builds and I’m not taking any chances.
Nice build, you should try custom control surfaces on your next build, you know how to make custom landing gear, you can certainly build control surfaces. It may be tedious, but the results would be well worth it.
So,I flew the Wright Flyer “simulator” at the Udar-Hazy annex of the Smithsonian, and it could either turn or fly level...but not both! This is exactly how your build feels and should be appreciated for capturing and informing the SP community just how hard it was to fly those early machines, great work!
I don’t think the maneuverability is bad/unrealistic. The fix @Aeromen proposes is the fix for when the airplane flips over end over end when the CoG and CoM are too close. This isn’t the issue here. The issue here is the airplane is entering an accelerated stall when the pilot pulls back to hard, so there’s an excessive amount of pitch authority. Though in SP, this isn’t modeled perfectly, it still produces a semi realistic effect in that the airplane snap rolls over if the pilot pulls too hard on the stick. In real life, especially in a fighter, I would fix this by warning the pilots not to pull too hard and avoid the high speed stall...which is actually a RL thing for many aircraft. It flies fine, maneuverability isn’t “bad”, in fact it’s very good and a skilled pilot can exploit this maneuverability while avoiding the stall, so, nah, I wouldn’t change a thing but for a mention in the flight manual.
@otayahiromo8211 the Zero was built with the design philosophy that light weight and the resultant maneuverability was the most important attribute for a fighter. The drawbacks were that those aircraft such as the Zero were the fact they were lightly armored...when hit, they did not absorb damage as well as stronger aircraft. Additionally, while the Zero was fast enough at the beginning of the war, matching the P-40 and Wildcat, it was rapidly overtaken by faster designs such as the Hellcat and Corsair, which exploited the Zero’s lack of speed with better tactics using high speed hit and run attacks, repositioning by zooming up higher and faster than the Zero could and diving down for multiple passes. The Zero would not survive long in these type of engagements, unless flown by a superior pilot...but the Japanese had lost a lot of experienced pilots by that time, so inexperienced pilots tended to be mauled by more experienced U.S. flyers using superior tactics late in the war. So, though the Zero was a more maneuverable fighter throughout the war (U.S. pilots throughout the war were advised to NEVER turn with a Zero), it’s design philosophy was outmatched by less maneuverable, but far faster fighters, such as the F4U, which destroyed the Zero in ever increasing numbers. If a Corsair pilot turned with a Zero, it frequently didn’t end well for the F4U, but Corsair pilots were trained NOT to get into this situation and dive away if they were caught there. There is much more to aerial combat than two fighters turning up in an attempt to end up on the other’s tail...tactics, teamwork and training tend to win the day. Simply compare the kill ratios of the Corsair (or even Hellcat) vs. the Zero for evidence of this fact. Also, consider the later Japanese designs (Hayate, Shiden and others) which put a far greater emphasis on speed...but far too late to make a difference to Japan’s eventual defeat.
Unfortunately there are no Mach effects in SP. A straight winged aircraft and a swept wing aircraft fly exactly the same speed. I tried it awhile ago and was severely disappointed. I do agree with your point, though, realistic builds, even if they’re fictional aircraft, will have swept or relatively short and thin wings if they fly at supersonic speeds in SP (around 770 mph at S.L.).
Well, this is pretty good. Too bad it hasn't been noticed yet, hopefully, Spotlighting it will get some notice for you. Things I might suggest for next time: It's bigger than 1:1 scale, you might make it to scale next time. It has way more fuel than the real thing, which gives it a relatively high wing loading, making it tougher to fly than it might be. I, in fact, removed a bunch of fuel and it flies great at a lower wing loading. The real thing has a full up weight of less than 25,000 lbs, usually flown at less than 20,000 lbs at takeoff and is a highly maneuverable and a joy to fly...in other words, it's not an F-4 fully grossed out. I realize SP fuel consumption is higher than in RL, which is why many people will put infinite fuel on a build, or fill it completely with fuel, but who the heck flies around for 2 hours in SP? Also, in RL the F-5 (or really most other aircraft) doesn't move the flaps along with the stab. I would suggest keeping the flaps on VTOL so that they can be selected for takeoff and landing. But, the proportions are right, you've captured the overall look of the F-5 and the performance is in the right neighborhood; I have 500 hours in the T-38, so I ought to know. Nice work.
So this is good... It’s underpowered, barely climbs, flies slow...accurate. I was at the Udar Hazy Annex of the Smithsonian, where they have a Wright Flyer simulator. That plane will climb, fly level or turn...but not all at the same time! Plus, it’s constantly on the edge of the stall, like this build. 👍
Cool build of a little known aircraft, plus it’s Soviet, which is all the better. I was able to fly it (barely), but should have a little more pitch authority. But, perhaps you were trying to correctly model the real airplane, which, I imagine, was similar to the Blinder, which did not like to take off!
The highest rated SP plane of all time...congrats! I hope this takes you over 25K points and to Platinum (I was hoping my vote would get you there, but it didn’t; still I’m sure you’ll get there with this build).
I have to admit, I never tried out satuzuki65’s original build, but I am so impressed with the research, thought, attention to detail—and...no infinite fuel!!! Bonus! And it actually flies well! This is a “in your face” to all those high ranked builders who resort to tricks in their builds. Beautiful work, here’s a Spotlight!
@Chancey21 is correct, it will be really difficult to make your airplane fly correctly with the wings angled like that. This is a great starting point for building curved airfoils, but you can simplify the design a bit, there are many RL wing shapes, most in fact have lower leading edges which are curved around, some are symmetrical (most fighter aircraft), others are thinner. Bottom line, do a little research, use the above as a template, but don’t worry if your wing design doesn’t exactly match the one above.
@Mostly well, I’ll meet you half way on this with a qualification: I’m certainly not a “fanboy”. The term is degrading and frankly, not an accurate description of me personally. I have a B.S. in History from the United States Air Force Academy, plus 24 years flying U-2s, T-38, T-37 and KC-135. So, I know a bit about Airpower and Airpower history (notice how I capped “Airpower”?), because I’ve spent most of my adult life thinking about this subject. I have also graduated from both the Air Command and Staff and Air War College courses. Plus, I’ve worked staff assignments at the numbered Air Force, CAOC and MAJCOM levels, working operational issues. So, I know a bit of what I’m talking about. The Spit was a great dog fighter but much shorter ranged. The Mustang didn’t turn quite as well, but was fast and long ranged and exploited zoom and boom tactics, but could certainly turn if need be. Both were highly successful in their roles. The fact of the matter, though, is we need to understand the history accurately. To do otherwise is to introduce a creeping misreading or revisionism to the truth.
Interesting, had not seen this one yet. I have around 500 hours in the T-38A and was an IP in the jet. A little nose heavy, does it have trim, can't seem to make it work. Looks pretty good, though.
Where do you live because I was on our front lawn at my house (Yorktown, Virginia area) and I saw a B-24 lumber past, must have been at 5,000’ or so. Really much louder from the ground than I would have imagined, I thought of WWII when hundreds of those aircraft would have bombed Germany...
@BACconcordepilot yeah...that doesn’t help at all, thanks, buddy. Funny, though. I’m trying to build a 1950s rocket armed interceptor, pre-Sidewinder/Sparrow days.
@ColonelStriker that 5 - 15 secs is a guesstimate and “target lock” is jargon. The time it takes for a radar to acquire and determine azimuth and distance really has to do with sweep time, or how long it takes the radar antenna (old style parabolic/directional antennas) to complete a rotation and “paint” the target twice. The speed of light will add a fraction of a second, but not too much (it takes about .0014 secs for light to cover 420 miles). Newer phased array antennas are able to paint and track targets multiple times per second, thanks to the magic of computers. The faster the processor, the faster the paints and the better the tracking.
Problems with the SP combat AI:
1. The AI will, as often as not, try and split-S into the ocean (or ground).
2. The AI does not seem to know to avoid mountains and will fly your creation into a mountain.
3. When spawning, the AI (almost always) throws in full scale elevator deflection at 250 mph, sending your faster airplanes into accelerated stalls and causing them to depart controlled flight. A pilot is trained to know not to "demand" more out of his airplane than what's safe and to keep his jet in the proper maneuvering envelope.
4. The [combat] AI knows nothing of BFM (Basic Fighting Maneuvering)...it prefers to go head to head making high-speed passes while trying to gun or missile its opponent, then turns to repeat the maneuver. AI combat devolves into a series of high-speed head-on passes where whether or not you defeat the other jet is more driven by a lucky strike than anything else. It doesn't try to turn inside the opponent's turn circle or give itself turning space to take advantage of geometry.
In short, the AI sucks at combat, to the point it makes it a total toss-up during challenges of which airplane is going to win.
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation ok, will do :) So, I posted on my avatar shot on the Imgur site, think it was called, can't remember exactly. Will try that, thanks!
Not to nitpick, but this isn’t an E-model Phantom. The USN flew the A, B, J and N model Phantoms and the E model was a USAF jet with a distinctly more slender nose and an internal M61 cannon in the bulge below the radar. Unfortunately, you have more points than me so I can’t upvote this!
Nice build, good flight model. You did make one odd choice with the mirror-imaged “USAF” on the bottom of the left wing, I have to wonder where that came from?
@WEEB if you ever need help with a build, especially with the flight model, just ask me. I’m willing to test things out and make suggestions. If not me, many people know how to adjust flight models for realistic behavior, all you have to do is ask.
200 KIAS liftoff wasn’t actually unrealistic. Fully loaded out in hot weather, the bomber version of the “Thud” would often lift off at 230 KIAS. The WW, though, was a bit lighter without all those iron bombs, so takeoffs were a bit slower. All those Century series jets had high takeoff, approach and landing speeds.
You know, this is not only an outstanding build in terms of accuracy, precision and flying qualities...it was funny reading @BogdanX’s comments, they were exactly what I was thinking...but I have to say, it’s a very elegant build, what you’ve managed to achieve with a relatively few parts is outstanding. Some people trying this build may have done some pretty stupid things, like, say, putting a hidden jet engine in the fuse to get the proper speed, unlimited fuel, overpowered engines, etc. I’ve seen all of that, but you manage to avoid anything stupid...very well done, IMHO!
+2I noticed a couple things on your build. First, nice LG, great details. Second was the flaps, which create a nose up/down effect and the trim being set to roll...I can only assume you are having, or have had, issues with autoroll on the build you’re working. IF you are trying to counter autoroll on your builds there are better ways of doing so. The way I’ve described (flaps for pitch trim, ailerons to counter autoroll) works, but it leaves you with a build that relies on using flaps throughout the speed range, which is highly unrealistic as flaps create a lot of drag in RL. Flaps simply aren’t used at high speeds unless it’s a U-2 in “gust up”. There are two main sources of autoroll: unbalanced weight—which affects builds much more than it would do so in RL and uneven drag. The good news is that, often, 50-100 lbs of dead weight in a wing root will often cure the first problem and inserting “dragscale=0” into the XML file will eliminate drag for details on your plane. Of course, I may be assuming a lot here and may be that you’re not doing any of these things...in that case, nice build.
+2Ok, this is FANTASTIC work—you are definitely NOT a noob! The flying dynamics are probably the best bush plane I’ve flown here on site...it actually flies like a real bush plane, maneuverable but stable, slow...I actually was able to roll it onto one wheel and hold off the other wheel, simply amazing. You have a new follower, who also has 4,000+ hrs of pilot time, so I ought to know.
+2Some nice detail work here, looks like a Lincoln, so that’s good. Really needs longer main gear, first, the RL plane had longer main gear, but also, there’s not enough angle to take off—my flight test revealed a takeoff speed of 240 mph—about as fast as a fully laden F-105. Flies appropriately well, though it DESPERATELY needs trim. Nose dives unless you hold aft pressure to keep it up. I swear, does anyone fly these builds? A for effort, it’s a learning process and here’s an upvote.
+2@EngineerOtaku as for cost...IF (and that’s a big IF...I worked several budget cycles on the ACC Staff at Langley, and no one, I mean no one can make sense of actual costs. Lifecycle cost, acquisition cost, BOS cost, all this things are mixed and matched to present the lowest possible dollar amount when competing for funding), I estimate that the USAF could have bought approximately 1.1 F-23s for the cost of an F-22. If the F-22 was the least expensive platform, I estimate that the USAF could have afforded only .9 F-23s for the cost of an F-22. “Less costly” is measured in percents, not whole numbers. It would be wildly inaccurate to assume we might have afforded 2 or 3 F-23s for the cost of a Raptor.
+2Very nice build.
+2@randomusername besides, "autopitch" isn't a thing, changing aerodynamic forces induced with speed changes results in the nose rising or falling as the aircraft attempts to gain or lose airspeed IAW the current trim setting. That's why, when I add power without changing the trim setting, the nose rises, the aircraft continues to fly at the same airspeed, but climbs, exchanging the extra energy from the thrust increase to increased altitude.
+2I like the look and clean lines a lot. Some nice features and obvious you did some good work here. Performance/flying characteristics pretty good...except for slight auto-roll that gets worse with speed. There are ways of correcting that, of course. Nice overall.
+2That’s not a flat spin. What that is is a hammerhead stall at the top and entry into a conventional spin. A flat spin is...guess what? Flat! What that means is that the fuse remains level, or close to level, with the horizon while it rotates around the yaw axis. By the way, flat spins are typically undesirable as they are difficult to recover from. Nice entry and recovery, though.
+2Beautiful build, nice attention to the performance, great views and features...but, wow, is it touchy! Very difficult to control in the landing flare, likes to roll a lot!
+2Well, interesting build. Lots of well thought-out details and custom gear, no less. You could do without the infinite fuel (though a fictional build, pilots are constantly trained to be aware of their fuel), it has a bit of autoroll (the bane of many a builder) and I would suggest you go with drag reduction instead of just multiplying the engine power (it would help make the acceleration more realistic).
+2@RedRoosterII I don’t think so. It’s a pretty old post. I still build this way, though, as autoroll spoils great builds and I’m not taking any chances.
+2Nice build, you should try custom control surfaces on your next build, you know how to make custom landing gear, you can certainly build control surfaces. It may be tedious, but the results would be well worth it.
+2So,I flew the Wright Flyer “simulator” at the Udar-Hazy annex of the Smithsonian, and it could either turn or fly level...but not both! This is exactly how your build feels and should be appreciated for capturing and informing the SP community just how hard it was to fly those early machines, great work!
+2I don’t think the maneuverability is bad/unrealistic. The fix @Aeromen proposes is the fix for when the airplane flips over end over end when the CoG and CoM are too close. This isn’t the issue here. The issue here is the airplane is entering an accelerated stall when the pilot pulls back to hard, so there’s an excessive amount of pitch authority. Though in SP, this isn’t modeled perfectly, it still produces a semi realistic effect in that the airplane snap rolls over if the pilot pulls too hard on the stick. In real life, especially in a fighter, I would fix this by warning the pilots not to pull too hard and avoid the high speed stall...which is actually a RL thing for many aircraft. It flies fine, maneuverability isn’t “bad”, in fact it’s very good and a skilled pilot can exploit this maneuverability while avoiding the stall, so, nah, I wouldn’t change a thing but for a mention in the flight manual.
+2@otayahiromo8211 the Zero was built with the design philosophy that light weight and the resultant maneuverability was the most important attribute for a fighter. The drawbacks were that those aircraft such as the Zero were the fact they were lightly armored...when hit, they did not absorb damage as well as stronger aircraft. Additionally, while the Zero was fast enough at the beginning of the war, matching the P-40 and Wildcat, it was rapidly overtaken by faster designs such as the Hellcat and Corsair, which exploited the Zero’s lack of speed with better tactics using high speed hit and run attacks, repositioning by zooming up higher and faster than the Zero could and diving down for multiple passes. The Zero would not survive long in these type of engagements, unless flown by a superior pilot...but the Japanese had lost a lot of experienced pilots by that time, so inexperienced pilots tended to be mauled by more experienced U.S. flyers using superior tactics late in the war. So, though the Zero was a more maneuverable fighter throughout the war (U.S. pilots throughout the war were advised to NEVER turn with a Zero), it’s design philosophy was outmatched by less maneuverable, but far faster fighters, such as the F4U, which destroyed the Zero in ever increasing numbers. If a Corsair pilot turned with a Zero, it frequently didn’t end well for the F4U, but Corsair pilots were trained NOT to get into this situation and dive away if they were caught there. There is much more to aerial combat than two fighters turning up in an attempt to end up on the other’s tail...tactics, teamwork and training tend to win the day. Simply compare the kill ratios of the Corsair (or even Hellcat) vs. the Zero for evidence of this fact. Also, consider the later Japanese designs (Hayate, Shiden and others) which put a far greater emphasis on speed...but far too late to make a difference to Japan’s eventual defeat.
+2Unfortunately there are no Mach effects in SP. A straight winged aircraft and a swept wing aircraft fly exactly the same speed. I tried it awhile ago and was severely disappointed. I do agree with your point, though, realistic builds, even if they’re fictional aircraft, will have swept or relatively short and thin wings if they fly at supersonic speeds in SP (around 770 mph at S.L.).
+2One detail I really like is the slab sided nature of the fuselage below the canopy...most people completely miss this, but it's perfect here!
+2Well, this is pretty good. Too bad it hasn't been noticed yet, hopefully, Spotlighting it will get some notice for you. Things I might suggest for next time: It's bigger than 1:1 scale, you might make it to scale next time. It has way more fuel than the real thing, which gives it a relatively high wing loading, making it tougher to fly than it might be. I, in fact, removed a bunch of fuel and it flies great at a lower wing loading. The real thing has a full up weight of less than 25,000 lbs, usually flown at less than 20,000 lbs at takeoff and is a highly maneuverable and a joy to fly...in other words, it's not an F-4 fully grossed out. I realize SP fuel consumption is higher than in RL, which is why many people will put infinite fuel on a build, or fill it completely with fuel, but who the heck flies around for 2 hours in SP? Also, in RL the F-5 (or really most other aircraft) doesn't move the flaps along with the stab. I would suggest keeping the flaps on VTOL so that they can be selected for takeoff and landing. But, the proportions are right, you've captured the overall look of the F-5 and the performance is in the right neighborhood; I have 500 hours in the T-38, so I ought to know. Nice work.
+2So this is good... It’s underpowered, barely climbs, flies slow...accurate. I was at the Udar Hazy Annex of the Smithsonian, where they have a Wright Flyer simulator. That plane will climb, fly level or turn...but not all at the same time! Plus, it’s constantly on the edge of the stall, like this build. 👍
+2Excellent build, I especially appreciate the detail with simulating the wing ribs.
+2Cool build of a little known aircraft, plus it’s Soviet, which is all the better. I was able to fly it (barely), but should have a little more pitch authority. But, perhaps you were trying to correctly model the real airplane, which, I imagine, was similar to the Blinder, which did not like to take off!
+2The highest rated SP plane of all time...congrats! I hope this takes you over 25K points and to Platinum (I was hoping my vote would get you there, but it didn’t; still I’m sure you’ll get there with this build).
+2Also, throttles move backwards, should be push forward to go fast, pull back to slow down.
+2This is great...accurate, 1:1 scale, highly detailed exterior, flies very well 😃👍
+2I have to admit, I never tried out satuzuki65’s original build, but I am so impressed with the research, thought, attention to detail—and...no infinite fuel!!! Bonus! And it actually flies well! This is a “in your face” to all those high ranked builders who resort to tricks in their builds. Beautiful work, here’s a Spotlight!
+2Not bad for your points especially. I wouldn’t have employed some of the tricks you did, but not bad overall.
+2@Chancey21 is correct, it will be really difficult to make your airplane fly correctly with the wings angled like that. This is a great starting point for building curved airfoils, but you can simplify the design a bit, there are many RL wing shapes, most in fact have lower leading edges which are curved around, some are symmetrical (most fighter aircraft), others are thinner. Bottom line, do a little research, use the above as a template, but don’t worry if your wing design doesn’t exactly match the one above.
+2Nice, drones destroyed with ease!
+2@Mostly well, I’ll meet you half way on this with a qualification: I’m certainly not a “fanboy”. The term is degrading and frankly, not an accurate description of me personally. I have a B.S. in History from the United States Air Force Academy, plus 24 years flying U-2s, T-38, T-37 and KC-135. So, I know a bit about Airpower and Airpower history (notice how I capped “Airpower”?), because I’ve spent most of my adult life thinking about this subject. I have also graduated from both the Air Command and Staff and Air War College courses. Plus, I’ve worked staff assignments at the numbered Air Force, CAOC and MAJCOM levels, working operational issues. So, I know a bit of what I’m talking about. The Spit was a great dog fighter but much shorter ranged. The Mustang didn’t turn quite as well, but was fast and long ranged and exploited zoom and boom tactics, but could certainly turn if need be. Both were highly successful in their roles. The fact of the matter, though, is we need to understand the history accurately. To do otherwise is to introduce a creeping misreading or revisionism to the truth.
+2Interesting, had not seen this one yet. I have around 500 hours in the T-38A and was an IP in the jet. A little nose heavy, does it have trim, can't seem to make it work. Looks pretty good, though.
+2How in the name of all that is holy did you manage sequenced gear doors that both open and close?!?!?
+2YES
+2Where do you live because I was on our front lawn at my house (Yorktown, Virginia area) and I saw a B-24 lumber past, must have been at 5,000’ or so. Really much louder from the ground than I would have imagined, I thought of WWII when hundreds of those aircraft would have bombed Germany...
+2Interesting. Try adding gyroscopes for stability...kind of fun to try and fly
+2YES!!! Then we could build accurate SR-71 and F-22s!
+2@BACconcordepilot yeah...that doesn’t help at all, thanks, buddy. Funny, though. I’m trying to build a 1950s rocket armed interceptor, pre-Sidewinder/Sparrow days.
+2@ColonelStriker that 5 - 15 secs is a guesstimate and “target lock” is jargon. The time it takes for a radar to acquire and determine azimuth and distance really has to do with sweep time, or how long it takes the radar antenna (old style parabolic/directional antennas) to complete a rotation and “paint” the target twice. The speed of light will add a fraction of a second, but not too much (it takes about .0014 secs for light to cover 420 miles). Newer phased array antennas are able to paint and track targets multiple times per second, thanks to the magic of computers. The faster the processor, the faster the paints and the better the tracking.
+2Nice build, looks good, needs a little help with flying qualities...and bigger intakes. You could then get rid of the stacked engines.
+2Problems with the SP combat AI:
1. The AI will, as often as not, try and split-S into the ocean (or ground).
2. The AI does not seem to know to avoid mountains and will fly your creation into a mountain.
3. When spawning, the AI (almost always) throws in full scale elevator deflection at 250 mph, sending your faster airplanes into accelerated stalls and causing them to depart controlled flight. A pilot is trained to know not to "demand" more out of his airplane than what's safe and to keep his jet in the proper maneuvering envelope.
4. The [combat] AI knows nothing of BFM (Basic Fighting Maneuvering)...it prefers to go head to head making high-speed passes while trying to gun or missile its opponent, then turns to repeat the maneuver. AI combat devolves into a series of high-speed head-on passes where whether or not you defeat the other jet is more driven by a lucky strike than anything else. It doesn't try to turn inside the opponent's turn circle or give itself turning space to take advantage of geometry.
In short, the AI sucks at combat, to the point it makes it a total toss-up during challenges of which airplane is going to win.
+2@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation ok, will do :) So, I posted on my avatar shot on the Imgur site, think it was called, can't remember exactly. Will try that, thanks!
+2@Erionh compatible with what @Erionh, VR? Built long before VR was a thing. But perhaps deserves a remaster…
+1@IQinventory I'd designate it as an "F-4J", those were deployed in Vietnam, which your current paint scheme approximately depicts.
+1Not to nitpick, but this isn’t an E-model Phantom. The USN flew the A, B, J and N model Phantoms and the E model was a USAF jet with a distinctly more slender nose and an internal M61 cannon in the bulge below the radar. Unfortunately, you have more points than me so I can’t upvote this!
+1Nice build, good flight model. You did make one odd choice with the mirror-imaged “USAF” on the bottom of the left wing, I have to wonder where that came from?
+1@LowtherInc no, doesn’t fly that well. But it was built more than 7 years ago when I didn’t really understand SP dynamics.
+1Excellent build!
+1@WEEB if you ever need help with a build, especially with the flight model, just ask me. I’m willing to test things out and make suggestions. If not me, many people know how to adjust flight models for realistic behavior, all you have to do is ask.
+1200 KIAS liftoff wasn’t actually unrealistic. Fully loaded out in hot weather, the bomber version of the “Thud” would often lift off at 230 KIAS. The WW, though, was a bit lighter without all those iron bombs, so takeoffs were a bit slower. All those Century series jets had high takeoff, approach and landing speeds.
+1@Mage2IsTriggered I write overly formally? Didn’t think I was any more so than you…how so?
+1