@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.
@Mage2IsTriggered interesting…so it’s not used exclusively as a torpedo bomber in that game and based on your assessment maybe it would have been more survivable if it had been employed as something other than a torpedo bomber. Part of the TBD’s issues was it’s tactics, low and slow to allow the torpedo delivery, which made it even more highly vulnerable. It’s also interesting that it does well against biplanes in WT, which I would expect IRL, as it’s faster than the typical biplane. WT battles are more like scrums with dozens of different types, in which you have as much of a chance to meet up with a biplane as a P-40 in the same battle.
@Mage2IsTriggered yes, this build looks very good. But I have to ask about your WT comment…I’ve played a little bit of WT, but never the TBD. IRL, the TBD was completely obsolete by the time the USN faced the Japanese in WWII, being too slow along with a suicidal delivery profile, and was absolutely slaughtered during the Battle of Midway. Making the sacrifice worse was the fact that the U.S. had a completely ineffective aerial torpedo at the time and scored zero hits during the battle. So, in WT, how is the TBD insanely powerful? Are you mixing this one up with the Dauntless SBD dive bomber, which despite being an earlier design, was actually a very good design with a great combat record?
Nice build…can you imagine flying one of these beasts from the Azores to NYC and back?!? I flew one leg yesterday from Lisbon to Dulles and that took almost 8 hours…in a jet! One of these things would have taken around 20 hours round trip! No thanks! Edit: This thing is 25 tons (tonnes…?) of fun! Just the right blend of features, reality and novelty to fritter away a few minutes trying to put a bomb on the deck of the Beast and get blown out of the sky!
So, why are you using the Cessna wing? This thing should be using the symmetric airfoil, as the RL jet does. I may try changing it myself to see how it behaves. Update: I changed the wing to symmetric and it now flies like the real thing, much better energy loss at high AoA (7 G turn at max thrust, starts at 420 KIAS, 180 degrees decelerates to 350 KIAS) and it departs if you pull too much AoA.
No, published performance numbers are generally in TAS, as they reflect what the aircraft is capable of achieving across the ground in a no wind situation. IAS varies too much with altitude and is a much less meaningful for evaluating aircraft performance. However, IAS is what pilots use to fly their aircraft as aircraft flight characteristics generally conform to IAS…the IAS at which an aircraft stalls is generally consistent, the stall speed being fairly close at S.L. as compared to higher altitudes…as that’s the speed the wing and instrumentation “sees” and reacts to.
Beautiful build, very realistic flight model, roll rate is spot on the RL plane, level flight acceleration is like the RL plane, not great, but acceptable. But it sure gains speed fast in the dive, just like the RL fighter, which was an advantage of the Warhawk in combat against its adversaries. Nice work, on my favorites list!
Also, amazing flight dynamics. Just with a real jet, I can get on the correct 3 degree glide path, set a power to hold an airspeed (about 10% and 160-165 KIAS on final), adjust the trim to maintain the aim point and flare as I come over the threshold. You are one of a very, very few builders who makes a build that behaves properly during approach and landing. You also use the correct symmetric airfoil, the smallish fuel load reflects the RL Lightning’s limitations and it behaves as closely to its RL counterpart as is probably possible in SP. Now in my “favorites” list…bravo!
Some thoughts on your build:
- I would recommend you out all lights on a single AG, with the landing lights having a dual input with landing gear extension; when the AG is activated and the L.G. is extended, landing lights come on and they extinguish with gear retraction. Fairly simple FT input and they would operate as IRL, for the most part. In peacetime, at night, aircraft are/were flown with all lights on for collision avoidance and in combat/exercises, flown “blacked out”. Doing it this way allows your build to be almost completely accurate while keeping lights on a single AG.
- The performance difference between prop only and using the four jets was 230 mph up to a dash speed of 400 mph…170 mph difference, so the jets greatly added to the performance; which recommend you not downplay the difference between prop only performance and prop plus jet performance.
- Just put all 4 jets on a single AG…there’s no scenario IRL where these guys would use only two of the four jets. They were used during takeoff, the bomb run/combat dash and to escape the thermonuclear blast. In any time f those cases, you don’t want to half-a** it.
- Described as “sitting on the porch and flying your house”, the B-36 wasn’t spry…however it WAS functional as an aircraft. If I try and fly this build and am unable to turn and align with the runway for landing, it’s not realistic. So, don’t make it too sluggish.
- I doubt that hydraulics weren’t considered powerful enough for the B-36’s flight controls. I’d like to see a citation and would argue that viewpoint with whomever said it…most aircraft hydraulic systems operate around 3000 PSI, far, far, far more powerful than what a pilot can operate manually. In 737 sim training, I’ve practiced manual reversion landings and I can tell you, it’s a bear to control the jet without the hydraulic system. The positive trade off, though, is the decreased complexity, weight and dependence on the hydraulic system, which is handy in combat as enemy action can easily take out the hydraulics. Yes, the B-36 did use balance bays and control tabs, as does the KC-135 even today, so what was achieved was the best one could expect from a manual system, but the trade off is heavy control forces. So much so that today, they just don’t make large aircraft which primarily depend on manual control surfaces.
- Anyway, looks like an ambitious effort, good luck!
@BangRou the autoroll is most noticeable at lower speeds, up to around 300 knots or so, though it’s still present above that speed. If you simply level the wings and let the stick go (zero aileron input), it rolls slowly to the right. You can really see it if you level the wings at slower speeds, then pull straight back…it definitely rolls right when it should pull straight. I don’t know if it’s due to the pod being right of centerline and making your build slightly right side heavy, having uneven drag or having a wonky mirrored connection, it could be any of those things. It’s slight, though and I’m sure it’s not a bother to most, though I definitely tend to notice those things.
Your first build, congratulations. Yes, SP is different than SR. I noticed on your build that you tell the user to “spawn on final approach”; you don’t say why, but probably because your build is very difficult to take off normally. This is because the rear landing gear is at the extreme end of the fuselage, making it impossible to rotate the jet when it reaches flying airspeed. To fix this, you can move the rear landing gear forward, where it sits just aft of the CoM, so that your build has a better pivot point around which to rotate and leave the runway. This solution would still leave it with the bicycle style landing gear arrangement, but it’s not impossible to simply keep the wings level while it runs down the runway. Hope this helps and welcome to SP!
Flies beautifully. So many builders think that large/heavy jets turn or pitch so slowly that they’re nearly impossible to fly. However, if you think about it, if a RL jet was engineered to be unmaneuverable, or at least not maneuverable enough to be controllable, they’d be impossible to fly. Your build, though it never was built IRL, flies quite realistically…it flies like a heavy jet, you wouldn’t want to do a Split-S or roll this thing, but the pilot can certainly easily correct his flight path and land the jet in the center of the runway. Another highlight is the fact that your landing gear doesn’t glitch out, in spite of the fact this build is way more than a million pounds gross. I’m going to have to download to my PC and investigate how you’ve managed this.
You failed to mention the most important parts of her history: Along with the Akagi, Hiryu, Soryu, Shokaku and Zuikaku, one of the IJN carriers in the attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December, 1941. Sunk at the Battle of Midway in June, 1942.
@AN2Felllla did some testing and you are correct, stock LG does reduce the drag when retracted. I’m surprised I didn’t know that, but the effect takes a few seconds to realize and I don’t really use the stock LG. However, bombs add zero drag to a build when added and drag does not adjust when they’re expended. It’s also a problem when building custom gravity munitions, the hit predictor doesn’t work correctly for custom weapons.
Quite fun, very stable. Fairly realistic handling characteristics, IMHO. Probably a little too fast, especially at low altitude…450 KTAS at S.L., not impossible, but that’s pretty fast for down low in thick air with those big compressor faces and hanging missiles. Nice rotary bomb bay. I can land it on the boat fairly easily, though the front L.G. is too weak (breaks off on landing at 140-150 KIAS) and it needs more nose up trim. The highlight is the fact that it’s intriguing enough to hold my attention as I investigate all the tricks you’ve incorporated.
@EngineerOtaku you’re correct, the lack of rudder authority is a big drawback of SP, not the fault of any builders who are trying to model accurate behavior. IRL, the rudder doesn’t actually roll the airplane as much as it yaws the airplane. The yaw, in turn, causes the opposite wing to advance through the air, relative the other wing. This causes an increase in lift on one side and the resultant roll. Since (I think) SP just looks at how fast the cockpit is advancing through the “air”, there are no differences in airflow across different parts of the build. Thus, there’s no such thing as rudder roll on SP, unless happened upon by accident.
I’ve accidentally captured that counterroll tendency myself. IRL, Phantom pilots did not reverse their aileron inputs when pulling Gs (high AoA), they frequently used the rudder for roll, or just did the standard technique of pull-unload-roll using aileron-pull.
That particular picture is a test pitot boom, that one isn’t the production version that the F-35 normally uses. Pitot booms or probes come in many shapes and sizes, here’s one carried on a 737, for comparison. The pitot probes look like little tubes and often you’ll see what looks like a small, swiveling wing in the same area, which would be the angle of attack indicator.
@Formula350 SB = Speed Brakes. And gotcha that you were referring to changing the AoA attributes as they pertain to the wing, while I was discussing how to utilize AoA as an input in an FT formula! Anyway, sorry for the confusion.
The ‘angleOfAttack’ (‘AoA’) attribute is not useless, @edensk, at least it’s very useful IRL and useful in game to command actions which would occur at certain AoAs or AoA ranges. Angle of attack is the angle that the airflow hits the mean chord line of the wing; so, if you’re flying slowly in level flight, with the nose at a high angle, but not losing or gaining altitude, you are at a high AoA. Likewise, if you’re turning hard pulling a lot of Gs. However, if you’re flying relatively “flatly”, such as at high speed in level flight, you have a low, or close to zero, AoA. Why is this even important? Well, a wing stalls when exceeding a certain AoA, both IRL and in game…it doesn’t matter the speed, altitude or attitude you’re at…if you exceed that “critical AoA”, the wing stalls. Granted, stalls often happen at slow speeds, because to produce increased lift at slow speeds the wing has to fly at an increased AoA, which puts it closer to the critical AoA. Additionally, greater AoA also produces more drag, as induced drag increases with increased lift. Though SP does use accurate lift and drag curves for the three airfoils present (you can actually look at the RL attributes for each NACA number that the SP airfoils represent and they are pretty accurate), I usually use AoA to extend SBs to simulate the increased drag present at high AoA using the FT formula: clamp01(-angleOfAttack - X), where “X” is the AoA, in degrees, where you want the action to occur. The negative sign is present as SP reverses the RL measure, so that what would be positive AoA IRL (nose up), is represented by the negative measurement and vice versa. Not confusing in the least. Also, to remember, most airfoils, both IRL and in SP, stall (reach their critical AoA) before 10-12 degrees, so I don’t generally link actions beyond that AoA range.
A nice surprise...there are a lot of Fishbed builds, the vast majority are crap, unfortunately. Yours is very good. Accelerates realistically, rolls and turns realistically, as long as speeds are kept above 300 KIAS (RL 21 could turn at speeds below 250 KIAS, you can with this build, but it’s very touchy). The build quality is pretty good as well and the camo looks nice. The view from the cockpit is actually much much better than the RL jet, which is actually one of the Fishbed’s biggest drawbacks. I’ve sat in the MiG-21 and the impression is...claustrophobic. There are some additional differences from the RL jet, it doesn’t model the .98/595 KCAS airspeed limit below 15,000’ which results in adverse handling if exceeded. The energy bleed in high G turns is modeled, that’s good. Nice that you included the aft speed brake which only extends once the tank is jettisoned. I would have liked to see the moving shockcone, the RL shockcone program is easy to find, it’s actually on Wikipedia. You also should have reflected the abysmal lack of fuel and range of the RL jet, instead of overloading it with fuel (which BTW, would weigh about 25,000 lbs IRL). But overall, fun to fly and it captures the fundamentals of the Fishbed.
Small updates probably aren’t going to bring in the revenue necessary to make it worth their time, I think they’re banking on SR2 at this point. Getting the big payback would probably require an SP2, don’t know if they’ve decided to do that yet. I wish they would, because I like the game over SR as it’s optimized for aircraft and the I don’t really want to have to learn a new build style.
@ChrisPy no, it’s not a simple ratio of airspeed to the speed of sound, because the speed of sound varies based on temperature; the speed of sound will be a lower true airspeed as you climb, but only because air temp is generally less the higher you go. At the same time indicated airspeed will be lower than true airspeed due to the lesser air density at higher altitudes. But the TAS/IAS relationship doesn’t have an effect on Mach. Anyway, in order to calculate Mach, you’d have to be able to measure temperature. In SP, there is no temp, but IRL, a standard day is 15 degrees C at SL with a standard lapse rate of minus 2 degrees per 1000 ft. And, if it’s a standard day (or, really, at any given temperature variation), you can calculate Mach by assuming the temp it will be at any given altitude. So I just assumed that if temp was measured in SP, it would be a standard day and I just built my Mach formula that way. For example, at 10,000’ on a standard day, the temp would be -5 degrees C (15 degrees at SL minus 2 degrees per 1000’ of elevation). I just assumed those temperature values, looked up the Mach numbers for a standard day at each altitude and built a formula that reflected those values. It’s a hack, but it’s close and you can fly my Mach meter, record the values for Mach 1 and look up the standard day speed of sound for each altitude and it’s fairly accurate. My formula is as follows: clamp(TAS / (340 - clamp((Altitude * 0.003937), 0, 43)), 0,3) because Mach 1 is 340 m/s at SL and it decreases by 0.003937 for every meter of altitude (assuming a standard day). I threw in the maximum correction of 43 as the tropopause, where atmospheric temperature remains relatively constant, starts at 36,000’.
Very nice build. Nice attention to details and good flight model. I’d give it a little more trim authority and less pitch change with flap extension, but the performance is in the realm of realistic and the handling is nice. Nice work.
@2Papi2Chulo that would be a great project. It wasn’t the fastest, highest flying or most maneuverable of the light/medium WWII bombers...the Mosquito, B-26 or A-26 were each either faster, higher flying or more maneuverable, but the B-25 was fast enough, rugged, very effective at both ultra low and medium altitudes and was, by all accounts, very well liked by its crews and got the job done. Plus, what other medium bomber launched an incredibly ballsy strike on the heart of Japan from an aircraft carrier??? Answer: no other. Great choice.
Third SP download this evening, first one I’m upvoting because the flight model isn’t bad. You added hidden SBs because you “suck at landing”...but it isn’t you, any airplane that can’t slow down is hard to land. So, why didn’t you have a set of SBs that automatically deploys with the landing gear and a set that deploys with the flaps? Besides actual SBs, those are both main ways that pilots use to control their speed and slow down for landing IRL. Suggest you employ that trick next time.
Actually, nice work here. @Dervito critiques your work, as follows:
1. Steering wheel is inverted...? No, it’s not, unless he’s seeing something I’m not, there’s no functional cockpit and all controls are normal, not reversed.
2. I see takeoff speed around 105 KIAS, around 120 mph...yes, a little fast...takeoff speed IRL is around 85 mph, so it’s faster than IRL, but not grossly out of whack.
3. Maneuverability is fine...it bobs and weaves just fine around 200 KIAS. I haven’t had it on the Dev Console, but I’m sure it’s pulling at least 5 Gs, which is in the ballpark.
4. Simple wing profile? I disagree, complex enough, 500 parts isn’t that much. If this build was 1,000+ parts with the same wing, I may agree, but 591 parts with full markings isn’t that much.
5. Would like to know where your work “isn’t that neat”. Have to disagree. From stand-off range, perfectly acceptable. What’s the specific complaint?
Quite the interesting build. Very low wing loading coupled with the semi-symmetric airfoil make for low stall speeds (54 KIAS/62 mph), long floaty landings and eggy shape makes nose over upon brake application highly likely. Recommeded approach speed is 85 KIAS with flaps extended (AG3) and touch down no slower than 65 KIAS. I feel about this one as I do all eggs, I like them better later in life and especially if they’re cooked correctly...I do appreciate this one as you’ve spent some care in this one and it’s eggyness gives me sufficient latitude to give you a big thumbs up! 👍
Well, I’d say it’s not a bad effort at all. Interestingly enough, though it uses the biggest SP engine possible (though I also assume it’s power has been reduced), it flies a fairly accurate top speed at both SL and at altitude. That’s hard to do in SP, so I wonder if it’s the huge amount of thrust that’s been reduced that’s the trick here. It does have horrendously fast acceleration, though, and that’s a drawback. But it’s simple, while being refreshingly accurate in many ways. One thing that really detracts from the flight model is the use of the Cessna wing...no RL jet fighter uses a flat bottomed airfoil and this build flies like it has a flat bottom airfoil. It pitches wildly at higher speeds, it floats on landing, it’s impossible to set an aimpoint on approach. I changed the airfoils to symmetric to see if that improved things and, guess what? It actually flies much, much better with the symmetric airfoil. I have no idea why builders like that Cessna wing, I hardly ever use it for my builds as the in game symmetric airfoil possesses many of the characteristics of its RL equivalents. If you’re building a Cessna that cruises at 110 mph, fine, use the flat bottomed wing, but if you’re building a jet fighter, especially one like the F-8, the “Last of the Gunfighters”, give it a low drag, high speed symmetric wing!
Quite fun, plus the attitude indicator really works quite well and fits into the time period’s aesthetic. That’s what I like about the fictional builds, they tend to be more “fun focused” and don’t get bogged down by requirements to reflect the RL performance figures. It does accelerate a little too quickly for a WWII Luftwaffe jet/early turbojet, plus you should use a range of 0 to -1 (or 1) for your flaps so that they don’t actually retract beyond the up position and it needs more trim authority, but this one is quite good overall, not ridiculous by any means. Nice work.
I got this one up to 3,243 KTAS, around 400 knots faster than you managed. But I had to zoom down from 200,000’ to do it. Very wobbly above 150,000’, but always remained stable enough, though I thought I was going to pull a Neil Armstrong and bounce off the upper atmosphere because the controls were fairly ineffective at that altitude...super fun ride, though!
@JaeBeansS well, glad you like it. There are some structural techniques that this build’s relative simplicity make easy to see. But I wouldn’t use this to create a flight model, it uses brute power to overcome the unrealistically high drag from the built up wings, instead of using drag reduction, as it should be done. As a result, it accelerates too quickly, plus it’s not as fast as the RL jet at low altitudes. It also probably has too much turn capability. Fixing the flight model wouldn’t take too much, though, it isn’t as hard as it seems to make a “good enough” flight model in SP.
What do you mean by a 1:1 flight model? We can discuss how SP is realistic (three NACA wing profiles with the accurate lift and drag curves, CoG and CoL, decreasing drag and air density with altitude, fuel consumption when flying as a RL plane would, etc.) and how it’s not as accurate as it could be (no supersonic effects, builders tend to cover wings which throws off drag effects, there’s no actual “air” in SP, so even parts which would be hidden from airflow IRL produce drag). But there are workarounds for most of these things, it is possible to make a “good” or even an “excellent” flight model, but you’ll never make a 100% accurate or a 1:1 flight model in SP...there are simply too many variables between RL and a simulation. Heck, even RL full motion flight simulators used in pilot training aren’t 100% accurate, but they are close enough to fly fairly accurately.
Beautiful work, looks good, handles well and performs realistically. Also, there aren’t that many of these on the site, which makes it that much more unique. I like it a lot.
Actually, not a half bad effort. Better thought out and executed than 90% of the builds out there. Plausible, not ridiculous. A couple of suggestions which might help take this build to the next level: Trim is reversed from RL, where trimming nose up is accomplished by clicking back on the little hat switch on top of the control stick. The way it’s set up here is really counterintuitive...pilots think “pull back, trees get smaller” and while the controls follow this logic, the trim controls do the opposite. Make it turn just a little better. I get you’re going for an interceptor that is optimized for straight line speed over turn capability...buuuut...it should be able to turn at least to 4 Gs or so. Added to this, if it had more pitch authority, it would be easier to land in a nose up attitude and at a slower speed. If you’re intentionally seeking a high landing speed, suggest you decrease the wing area instead of limiting the pitch, which is actually the reason RL aircraft have high landing speeds. Your build only has about 35 lb/sq ft wing loading, which is more in line with a WWII fighter than a 1960s circa jet, which often had 70-100 lb/sq ft wing loading. That would get you the effect you’re seeking here. But the other numbers are good and the realistic fuel quantity is great, though it could have just a little more thrust and speed brake power. But, overall, you’re on the right track and I like your build style...plus the insignia is fantastic!
@UltraLight or you could consider the elevator movement on the ground as the manipulation of the surface during the walk around, push the elevator trailing edge down, the trim tab should move up / remain neutral, push the elevator trailing edge up, the trim tab should move down / remain neutral.
So, on my initial flight with this build, I have to say, it actually flies fairly well. It’s significantly faster than the RL aircraft of this era and type, but that can be fixed. The trim controls are reversed from what they would be IRL, you might want to look at changing that. I also noticed that something flies off your build up if you push over into negative Gs. I’ll keep looking at this and figure out the gunner situation, but I won’t be back at my laptop until later this weekend, where I can really look at it.
@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@Mage2IsTriggered interesting…so it’s not used exclusively as a torpedo bomber in that game and based on your assessment maybe it would have been more survivable if it had been employed as something other than a torpedo bomber. Part of the TBD’s issues was it’s tactics, low and slow to allow the torpedo delivery, which made it even more highly vulnerable. It’s also interesting that it does well against biplanes in WT, which I would expect IRL, as it’s faster than the typical biplane. WT battles are more like scrums with dozens of different types, in which you have as much of a chance to meet up with a biplane as a P-40 in the same battle.
+1@Mage2IsTriggered yes, this build looks very good. But I have to ask about your WT comment…I’ve played a little bit of WT, but never the TBD. IRL, the TBD was completely obsolete by the time the USN faced the Japanese in WWII, being too slow along with a suicidal delivery profile, and was absolutely slaughtered during the Battle of Midway. Making the sacrifice worse was the fact that the U.S. had a completely ineffective aerial torpedo at the time and scored zero hits during the battle. So, in WT, how is the TBD insanely powerful? Are you mixing this one up with the Dauntless SBD dive bomber, which despite being an earlier design, was actually a very good design with a great combat record?
+1@Sgtk did you fly this one?
+1Nice build…can you imagine flying one of these beasts from the Azores to NYC and back?!? I flew one leg yesterday from Lisbon to Dulles and that took almost 8 hours…in a jet! One of these things would have taken around 20 hours round trip! No thanks! Edit: This thing is 25 tons (tonnes…?) of fun! Just the right blend of features, reality and novelty to fritter away a few minutes trying to put a bomb on the deck of the Beast and get blown out of the sky!
+1So, why are you using the Cessna wing? This thing should be using the symmetric airfoil, as the RL jet does. I may try changing it myself to see how it behaves. Update: I changed the wing to symmetric and it now flies like the real thing, much better energy loss at high AoA (7 G turn at max thrust, starts at 420 KIAS, 180 degrees decelerates to 350 KIAS) and it departs if you pull too much AoA.
+1Simple, yet satisfying.
+1@ELGATOGAMEPLAYS yes, FT, “Funky Trees”, is what SP calls it’s XML programming “language”.
+1No, published performance numbers are generally in TAS, as they reflect what the aircraft is capable of achieving across the ground in a no wind situation. IAS varies too much with altitude and is a much less meaningful for evaluating aircraft performance. However, IAS is what pilots use to fly their aircraft as aircraft flight characteristics generally conform to IAS…the IAS at which an aircraft stalls is generally consistent, the stall speed being fairly close at S.L. as compared to higher altitudes…as that’s the speed the wing and instrumentation “sees” and reacts to.
+1Beautiful build, very realistic flight model, roll rate is spot on the RL plane, level flight acceleration is like the RL plane, not great, but acceptable. But it sure gains speed fast in the dive, just like the RL fighter, which was an advantage of the Warhawk in combat against its adversaries. Nice work, on my favorites list!
+1Also, amazing flight dynamics. Just with a real jet, I can get on the correct 3 degree glide path, set a power to hold an airspeed (about 10% and 160-165 KIAS on final), adjust the trim to maintain the aim point and flare as I come over the threshold. You are one of a very, very few builders who makes a build that behaves properly during approach and landing. You also use the correct symmetric airfoil, the smallish fuel load reflects the RL Lightning’s limitations and it behaves as closely to its RL counterpart as is probably possible in SP. Now in my “favorites” list…bravo!
+1The Mighty Lightning! This thing exudes British Greatness!
+1@LieutenantSOT I’d be honored to test it for you. Also “Strategic Air Command”, starring the great Jimmy Stewart, is one of my favorite films!
+1Some thoughts on your build:
+1- I would recommend you out all lights on a single AG, with the landing lights having a dual input with landing gear extension; when the AG is activated and the L.G. is extended, landing lights come on and they extinguish with gear retraction. Fairly simple FT input and they would operate as IRL, for the most part. In peacetime, at night, aircraft are/were flown with all lights on for collision avoidance and in combat/exercises, flown “blacked out”. Doing it this way allows your build to be almost completely accurate while keeping lights on a single AG.
- The performance difference between prop only and using the four jets was 230 mph up to a dash speed of 400 mph…170 mph difference, so the jets greatly added to the performance; which recommend you not downplay the difference between prop only performance and prop plus jet performance.
- Just put all 4 jets on a single AG…there’s no scenario IRL where these guys would use only two of the four jets. They were used during takeoff, the bomb run/combat dash and to escape the thermonuclear blast. In any time f those cases, you don’t want to half-a** it.
- Described as “sitting on the porch and flying your house”, the B-36 wasn’t spry…however it WAS functional as an aircraft. If I try and fly this build and am unable to turn and align with the runway for landing, it’s not realistic. So, don’t make it too sluggish.
- I doubt that hydraulics weren’t considered powerful enough for the B-36’s flight controls. I’d like to see a citation and would argue that viewpoint with whomever said it…most aircraft hydraulic systems operate around 3000 PSI, far, far, far more powerful than what a pilot can operate manually. In 737 sim training, I’ve practiced manual reversion landings and I can tell you, it’s a bear to control the jet without the hydraulic system. The positive trade off, though, is the decreased complexity, weight and dependence on the hydraulic system, which is handy in combat as enemy action can easily take out the hydraulics. Yes, the B-36 did use balance bays and control tabs, as does the KC-135 even today, so what was achieved was the best one could expect from a manual system, but the trade off is heavy control forces. So much so that today, they just don’t make large aircraft which primarily depend on manual control surfaces.
- Anyway, looks like an ambitious effort, good luck!
@BangRou the autoroll is most noticeable at lower speeds, up to around 300 knots or so, though it’s still present above that speed. If you simply level the wings and let the stick go (zero aileron input), it rolls slowly to the right. You can really see it if you level the wings at slower speeds, then pull straight back…it definitely rolls right when it should pull straight. I don’t know if it’s due to the pod being right of centerline and making your build slightly right side heavy, having uneven drag or having a wonky mirrored connection, it could be any of those things. It’s slight, though and I’m sure it’s not a bother to most, though I definitely tend to notice those things.
+1Your first build, congratulations. Yes, SP is different than SR. I noticed on your build that you tell the user to “spawn on final approach”; you don’t say why, but probably because your build is very difficult to take off normally. This is because the rear landing gear is at the extreme end of the fuselage, making it impossible to rotate the jet when it reaches flying airspeed. To fix this, you can move the rear landing gear forward, where it sits just aft of the CoM, so that your build has a better pivot point around which to rotate and leave the runway. This solution would still leave it with the bicycle style landing gear arrangement, but it’s not impossible to simply keep the wings level while it runs down the runway. Hope this helps and welcome to SP!
+1Flies beautifully. So many builders think that large/heavy jets turn or pitch so slowly that they’re nearly impossible to fly. However, if you think about it, if a RL jet was engineered to be unmaneuverable, or at least not maneuverable enough to be controllable, they’d be impossible to fly. Your build, though it never was built IRL, flies quite realistically…it flies like a heavy jet, you wouldn’t want to do a Split-S or roll this thing, but the pilot can certainly easily correct his flight path and land the jet in the center of the runway. Another highlight is the fact that your landing gear doesn’t glitch out, in spite of the fact this build is way more than a million pounds gross. I’m going to have to download to my PC and investigate how you’ve managed this.
+1You failed to mention the most important parts of her history: Along with the Akagi, Hiryu, Soryu, Shokaku and Zuikaku, one of the IJN carriers in the attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December, 1941. Sunk at the Battle of Midway in June, 1942.
+1Doesn’t really fly like a Phantom…if I were to describe it, I’d say it flies more like an egg!
+1Simple Hornet, I like it.
+1@AN2Felllla did some testing and you are correct, stock LG does reduce the drag when retracted. I’m surprised I didn’t know that, but the effect takes a few seconds to realize and I don’t really use the stock LG. However, bombs add zero drag to a build when added and drag does not adjust when they’re expended. It’s also a problem when building custom gravity munitions, the hit predictor doesn’t work correctly for custom weapons.
+1Drag on the standard weapons, which decreases the build’s total drag when those weapons are expended.
+1Quite fun, very stable. Fairly realistic handling characteristics, IMHO. Probably a little too fast, especially at low altitude…450 KTAS at S.L., not impossible, but that’s pretty fast for down low in thick air with those big compressor faces and hanging missiles. Nice rotary bomb bay. I can land it on the boat fairly easily, though the front L.G. is too weak (breaks off on landing at 140-150 KIAS) and it needs more nose up trim. The highlight is the fact that it’s intriguing enough to hold my attention as I investigate all the tricks you’ve incorporated.
+1@EngineerOtaku you’re correct, the lack of rudder authority is a big drawback of SP, not the fault of any builders who are trying to model accurate behavior. IRL, the rudder doesn’t actually roll the airplane as much as it yaws the airplane. The yaw, in turn, causes the opposite wing to advance through the air, relative the other wing. This causes an increase in lift on one side and the resultant roll. Since (I think) SP just looks at how fast the cockpit is advancing through the “air”, there are no differences in airflow across different parts of the build. Thus, there’s no such thing as rudder roll on SP, unless happened upon by accident.
+1I’ve accidentally captured that counterroll tendency myself. IRL, Phantom pilots did not reverse their aileron inputs when pulling Gs (high AoA), they frequently used the rudder for roll, or just did the standard technique of pull-unload-roll using aileron-pull.
+1That particular picture is a test pitot boom, that one isn’t the production version that the F-35 normally uses. Pitot booms or probes come in many shapes and sizes, here’s one carried on a 737, for comparison. The pitot probes look like little tubes and often you’ll see what looks like a small, swiveling wing in the same area, which would be the angle of attack indicator.
+1@Formula350 SB = Speed Brakes. And gotcha that you were referring to changing the AoA attributes as they pertain to the wing, while I was discussing how to utilize AoA as an input in an FT formula! Anyway, sorry for the confusion.
+1The ‘angleOfAttack’ (‘AoA’) attribute is not useless, @edensk, at least it’s very useful IRL and useful in game to command actions which would occur at certain AoAs or AoA ranges. Angle of attack is the angle that the airflow hits the mean chord line of the wing; so, if you’re flying slowly in level flight, with the nose at a high angle, but not losing or gaining altitude, you are at a high AoA. Likewise, if you’re turning hard pulling a lot of Gs. However, if you’re flying relatively “flatly”, such as at high speed in level flight, you have a low, or close to zero, AoA. Why is this even important? Well, a wing stalls when exceeding a certain AoA, both IRL and in game…it doesn’t matter the speed, altitude or attitude you’re at…if you exceed that “critical AoA”, the wing stalls. Granted, stalls often happen at slow speeds, because to produce increased lift at slow speeds the wing has to fly at an increased AoA, which puts it closer to the critical AoA. Additionally, greater AoA also produces more drag, as induced drag increases with increased lift. Though SP does use accurate lift and drag curves for the three airfoils present (you can actually look at the RL attributes for each NACA number that the SP airfoils represent and they are pretty accurate), I usually use AoA to extend SBs to simulate the increased drag present at high AoA using the FT formula: clamp01(-angleOfAttack - X), where “X” is the AoA, in degrees, where you want the action to occur. The negative sign is present as SP reverses the RL measure, so that what would be positive AoA IRL (nose up), is represented by the negative measurement and vice versa. Not confusing in the least. Also, to remember, most airfoils, both IRL and in SP, stall (reach their critical AoA) before 10-12 degrees, so I don’t generally link actions beyond that AoA range.
+1A nice surprise...there are a lot of Fishbed builds, the vast majority are crap, unfortunately. Yours is very good. Accelerates realistically, rolls and turns realistically, as long as speeds are kept above 300 KIAS (RL 21 could turn at speeds below 250 KIAS, you can with this build, but it’s very touchy). The build quality is pretty good as well and the camo looks nice. The view from the cockpit is actually much much better than the RL jet, which is actually one of the Fishbed’s biggest drawbacks. I’ve sat in the MiG-21 and the impression is...claustrophobic. There are some additional differences from the RL jet, it doesn’t model the .98/595 KCAS airspeed limit below 15,000’ which results in adverse handling if exceeded. The energy bleed in high G turns is modeled, that’s good. Nice that you included the aft speed brake which only extends once the tank is jettisoned. I would have liked to see the moving shockcone, the RL shockcone program is easy to find, it’s actually on Wikipedia. You also should have reflected the abysmal lack of fuel and range of the RL jet, instead of overloading it with fuel (which BTW, would weigh about 25,000 lbs IRL). But overall, fun to fly and it captures the fundamentals of the Fishbed.
+1Small updates probably aren’t going to bring in the revenue necessary to make it worth their time, I think they’re banking on SR2 at this point. Getting the big payback would probably require an SP2, don’t know if they’ve decided to do that yet. I wish they would, because I like the game over SR as it’s optimized for aircraft and the I don’t really want to have to learn a new build style.
+1@ChrisPy no, it’s not a simple ratio of airspeed to the speed of sound, because the speed of sound varies based on temperature; the speed of sound will be a lower true airspeed as you climb, but only because air temp is generally less the higher you go. At the same time indicated airspeed will be lower than true airspeed due to the lesser air density at higher altitudes. But the TAS/IAS relationship doesn’t have an effect on Mach. Anyway, in order to calculate Mach, you’d have to be able to measure temperature. In SP, there is no temp, but IRL, a standard day is 15 degrees C at SL with a standard lapse rate of minus 2 degrees per 1000 ft. And, if it’s a standard day (or, really, at any given temperature variation), you can calculate Mach by assuming the temp it will be at any given altitude. So I just assumed that if temp was measured in SP, it would be a standard day and I just built my Mach formula that way. For example, at 10,000’ on a standard day, the temp would be -5 degrees C (15 degrees at SL minus 2 degrees per 1000’ of elevation). I just assumed those temperature values, looked up the Mach numbers for a standard day at each altitude and built a formula that reflected those values. It’s a hack, but it’s close and you can fly my Mach meter, record the values for Mach 1 and look up the standard day speed of sound for each altitude and it’s fairly accurate. My formula is as follows: clamp(TAS / (340 - clamp((Altitude * 0.003937), 0, 43)), 0,3) because Mach 1 is 340 m/s at SL and it decreases by 0.003937 for every meter of altitude (assuming a standard day). I threw in the maximum correction of 43 as the tropopause, where atmospheric temperature remains relatively constant, starts at 36,000’.
+1Very nice build. Nice attention to details and good flight model. I’d give it a little more trim authority and less pitch change with flap extension, but the performance is in the realm of realistic and the handling is nice. Nice work.
+1@2Papi2Chulo that would be a great project. It wasn’t the fastest, highest flying or most maneuverable of the light/medium WWII bombers...the Mosquito, B-26 or A-26 were each either faster, higher flying or more maneuverable, but the B-25 was fast enough, rugged, very effective at both ultra low and medium altitudes and was, by all accounts, very well liked by its crews and got the job done. Plus, what other medium bomber launched an incredibly ballsy strike on the heart of Japan from an aircraft carrier??? Answer: no other. Great choice.
+1Nice! I like flying builds like this, powerful, high flying props that haul a lot of bombs.
+1Third SP download this evening, first one I’m upvoting because the flight model isn’t bad. You added hidden SBs because you “suck at landing”...but it isn’t you, any airplane that can’t slow down is hard to land. So, why didn’t you have a set of SBs that automatically deploys with the landing gear and a set that deploys with the flaps? Besides actual SBs, those are both main ways that pilots use to control their speed and slow down for landing IRL. Suggest you employ that trick next time.
+1Actually, nice work here. @Dervito critiques your work, as follows:
+11. Steering wheel is inverted...? No, it’s not, unless he’s seeing something I’m not, there’s no functional cockpit and all controls are normal, not reversed.
2. I see takeoff speed around 105 KIAS, around 120 mph...yes, a little fast...takeoff speed IRL is around 85 mph, so it’s faster than IRL, but not grossly out of whack.
3. Maneuverability is fine...it bobs and weaves just fine around 200 KIAS. I haven’t had it on the Dev Console, but I’m sure it’s pulling at least 5 Gs, which is in the ballpark.
4. Simple wing profile? I disagree, complex enough, 500 parts isn’t that much. If this build was 1,000+ parts with the same wing, I may agree, but 591 parts with full markings isn’t that much.
5. Would like to know where your work “isn’t that neat”. Have to disagree. From stand-off range, perfectly acceptable. What’s the specific complaint?
Quite the interesting build. Very low wing loading coupled with the semi-symmetric airfoil make for low stall speeds (54 KIAS/62 mph), long floaty landings and eggy shape makes nose over upon brake application highly likely. Recommeded approach speed is 85 KIAS with flaps extended (AG3) and touch down no slower than 65 KIAS. I feel about this one as I do all eggs, I like them better later in life and especially if they’re cooked correctly...I do appreciate this one as you’ve spent some care in this one and it’s eggyness gives me sufficient latitude to give you a big thumbs up! 👍
+1Well, I’d say it’s not a bad effort at all. Interestingly enough, though it uses the biggest SP engine possible (though I also assume it’s power has been reduced), it flies a fairly accurate top speed at both SL and at altitude. That’s hard to do in SP, so I wonder if it’s the huge amount of thrust that’s been reduced that’s the trick here. It does have horrendously fast acceleration, though, and that’s a drawback. But it’s simple, while being refreshingly accurate in many ways. One thing that really detracts from the flight model is the use of the Cessna wing...no RL jet fighter uses a flat bottomed airfoil and this build flies like it has a flat bottom airfoil. It pitches wildly at higher speeds, it floats on landing, it’s impossible to set an aimpoint on approach. I changed the airfoils to symmetric to see if that improved things and, guess what? It actually flies much, much better with the symmetric airfoil. I have no idea why builders like that Cessna wing, I hardly ever use it for my builds as the in game symmetric airfoil possesses many of the characteristics of its RL equivalents. If you’re building a Cessna that cruises at 110 mph, fine, use the flat bottomed wing, but if you’re building a jet fighter, especially one like the F-8, the “Last of the Gunfighters”, give it a low drag, high speed symmetric wing!
+1Quite fun, plus the attitude indicator really works quite well and fits into the time period’s aesthetic. That’s what I like about the fictional builds, they tend to be more “fun focused” and don’t get bogged down by requirements to reflect the RL performance figures. It does accelerate a little too quickly for a WWII Luftwaffe jet/early turbojet, plus you should use a range of 0 to -1 (or 1) for your flaps so that they don’t actually retract beyond the up position and it needs more trim authority, but this one is quite good overall, not ridiculous by any means. Nice work.
+1Glides like brick!
+1I got this one up to 3,243 KTAS, around 400 knots faster than you managed. But I had to zoom down from 200,000’ to do it. Very wobbly above 150,000’, but always remained stable enough, though I thought I was going to pull a Neil Armstrong and bounce off the upper atmosphere because the controls were fairly ineffective at that altitude...super fun ride, though!
+1@JaeBeansS well, glad you like it. There are some structural techniques that this build’s relative simplicity make easy to see. But I wouldn’t use this to create a flight model, it uses brute power to overcome the unrealistically high drag from the built up wings, instead of using drag reduction, as it should be done. As a result, it accelerates too quickly, plus it’s not as fast as the RL jet at low altitudes. It also probably has too much turn capability. Fixing the flight model wouldn’t take too much, though, it isn’t as hard as it seems to make a “good enough” flight model in SP.
+1@Brencool35 yes, you can do multiselect and then angle all the parts an appropriate amount. It probably won't take much of an angle.
+1What do you mean by a 1:1 flight model? We can discuss how SP is realistic (three NACA wing profiles with the accurate lift and drag curves, CoG and CoL, decreasing drag and air density with altitude, fuel consumption when flying as a RL plane would, etc.) and how it’s not as accurate as it could be (no supersonic effects, builders tend to cover wings which throws off drag effects, there’s no actual “air” in SP, so even parts which would be hidden from airflow IRL produce drag). But there are workarounds for most of these things, it is possible to make a “good” or even an “excellent” flight model, but you’ll never make a 100% accurate or a 1:1 flight model in SP...there are simply too many variables between RL and a simulation. Heck, even RL full motion flight simulators used in pilot training aren’t 100% accurate, but they are close enough to fly fairly accurately.
+1Beautiful work, looks good, handles well and performs realistically. Also, there aren’t that many of these on the site, which makes it that much more unique. I like it a lot.
+1Actually, not a half bad effort. Better thought out and executed than 90% of the builds out there. Plausible, not ridiculous. A couple of suggestions which might help take this build to the next level: Trim is reversed from RL, where trimming nose up is accomplished by clicking back on the little hat switch on top of the control stick. The way it’s set up here is really counterintuitive...pilots think “pull back, trees get smaller” and while the controls follow this logic, the trim controls do the opposite. Make it turn just a little better. I get you’re going for an interceptor that is optimized for straight line speed over turn capability...buuuut...it should be able to turn at least to 4 Gs or so. Added to this, if it had more pitch authority, it would be easier to land in a nose up attitude and at a slower speed. If you’re intentionally seeking a high landing speed, suggest you decrease the wing area instead of limiting the pitch, which is actually the reason RL aircraft have high landing speeds. Your build only has about 35 lb/sq ft wing loading, which is more in line with a WWII fighter than a 1960s circa jet, which often had 70-100 lb/sq ft wing loading. That would get you the effect you’re seeking here. But the other numbers are good and the realistic fuel quantity is great, though it could have just a little more thrust and speed brake power. But, overall, you’re on the right track and I like your build style...plus the insignia is fantastic!
+1@UltraLight or you could consider the elevator movement on the ground as the manipulation of the surface during the walk around, push the elevator trailing edge down, the trim tab should move up / remain neutral, push the elevator trailing edge up, the trim tab should move down / remain neutral.
+1So, on my initial flight with this build, I have to say, it actually flies fairly well. It’s significantly faster than the RL aircraft of this era and type, but that can be fixed. The trim controls are reversed from what they would be IRL, you might want to look at changing that. I also noticed that something flies off your build up if you push over into negative Gs. I’ll keep looking at this and figure out the gunner situation, but I won’t be back at my laptop until later this weekend, where I can really look at it.
+1