Not gonna lie...I like this. I like it a lot. It reminds me of a RL T-38. I really, really like how a substantial pitch up is required at liftoff. T:W is realistic, though IMHO the wing loading is a bit low for this configuration (pointy jet with smallish wing, the T-38 is 60+ lbs/sq ft, this one is less than half that)...eh, perhaps not, given its more of a delta/diamond shaped wing. Overall, I don’t think it’s too maneuverable, in fact, I think the roll rate is a tad slow. But it’s a blast to fly and that’s most important, nice work!
Very nice WWII replica build, flies quite nicely, and IMHO, very realistically. Build quality is pretty good, though the lettering does stick out a little more than what I’d be satisfied with. But, overall, the flight dynamics, realistic features and thought that went into this is at a very high level, I like it, nice work!
Humorous. The build itself follows the outer mold line fairly accurately, with a few exceptions...the windscreen being a notable example. FedEx logo is well done, I will admit and the wrapping is pretty good. But it would look better in black, IMHO, perhaps you’ll do a more historically accurate livery soon? Flight model needs a little work, as it flies way too fast down low and way too slow up high. Highlight is the stability, which is good, the SR was a big jet, so the smooth, stable control response is what I would expect. I would increase the slow speed control responsiveness a little bit more as landing takes a bit too much anticipation (but, really, how would I know? Never even flew the SR sim). Acceleration is ridiculously fast and brake stopping power is better than a 737 on auto brakes MAX. Revising the flight model probably wouldn’t take too much to yield more accurate results: The drag points are probably in the ballpark and I would simply lower total thrust and revise the throttle input to incorporate IAS (ram air effect) and altitude. Revising the weight and fuel to RL numbers would also help greatly with realism, the RL jet was a fairly large bird at over 150,000 lbs. Last, I would revise the cockpit view to make it to approximate the RL cockpit view.
This one is fairly easy to fly, hover and control. Kind of a rarity around here. It’s a little too easy and stable, IMHO, but it’s not like we have a plethora of real world pilots on site, so I’m sure it’s about the right speed for the majority of players. You do have to pay attention and make positive, but small inputs to land it where you want to. I managed to land on one of the destroyer’s heli pads...first attempt, but it took a little concentration to land it without whacking the main rotor on the superstructure, which, BTW, actually is taller than the aft superstructure itself. I should go try and shwack the convoy next. Fun. Nice work.
@Numbers yes, it's like landing a giant, heavy, twitchy glider that doesn't want to stop flying. The preferred landing attitude was "slightly tailwheel first", which meant the wing was stalled and not producing lift ("flying") upon touchdown. As for the chase car not being there, there were actually a number of scenarios where that would occur. Most frequently, when making a sharp turn onto the runway (AKA "90 degree run-in"), if you weren't careful, you could spin out in the chase car. What typically followed was a "You're on your own!" call on the radio. But we trained to do "no voice" landings, so we could land the jet fairly well without the chase car, if we had to. I'd, from time to time, fly a practice sortie and request all no voice landings.
Quite nice and engaging for what it is: A simple Sabre build. The guns are kinda OTT...the .50 cals certainly had the rate of fire, but your build’s guns also just shred anything they touch. The .50 cal made a lot of holes, but US pilots wanted more punch, which is why the M39 and eventually M61 cannons were developed (interesting aside on the “Gun Val” Sabres tested with the M39 cannon). Anyway, easy to fly, roll rate is just a bit too slow, but nice, semi-realistic rendition that’s simple, nice work!
@Hedero, maybe. It’s a lot of work and I haven’t started anything lately, so it’ll take awhile even if I started today. But I do occasionally think about what jet I would build next, a B-47, an A-4, an F-104 or a B-52 are all on the top of my potentials list.
@KangaKangaTheRoo I’ve already incorporated the decreased supersonic maneuverability feature into both my Su-11 and my F-20. But the control surfaces move fully, as they did IRL.
@KangaKangaTheRoo the supersonic maneuverability issue isn’t unique to the Hun, it’s a consequence of the localized shockwave effects blanking control surfaces. The all moving horizontal slab, vice elevator at the back of a horizontal stab, is due to this issue. Most supersonic aircraft experience this phenomenon.
@KangaKangaTheRoo the definition of “irreversible” in this context is that they would always move through their entire range. No, the Hun didn’t have the problem, at least not as you’re describing it.
@KangaKangaTheRoo describe this “locked control surfaces” problem with the F-100? The Hun had a few problems, many of which were due to the supersonic regime, which was new to an operational fighter and most of which were sorted out in the first few years of operation. There was inertia coupling, which killed George Welch during testing, and which led to the larger vertical stab, the high landing speed and a tendency to do the dreaded “Sabre Dance”, partially due to the lack of flaps on the A model jet, which killed many young fighter pilots. There was also structural problems which required bracing to fix, but I’m completely unfamiliar of a tendency for the flight controls to “lock up” in flight. The Hun had hydraulically operated, irreversible flight controls, as do most jets like this, which makes me doubt some aerodynamic phenomenon would lead to locked controls...do you have more details of what you’re describing?
Well, it’s about 5x heavier and 50% larger than the RL airplane, but the build itself looks really nice and the customization, while not original to the RL lane, captures the whole customized sport plane vibe. Also flies fairly well.
You did the one thing right that almost everyone gets wrong with the Hornet: the landing gear is sufficiently beefy, just like the real jet. It would have been great if you could have had a real cockpit view as it’s almost impossible to land on the boat without it!
Pretty good, actually. Acceleration , turning and roll performance from my brief flight on mobile all seem realistic. Yup, cannons are difficult to impossible to use air to air...SP’s limitation, not your fault, though I do understand there is a workaround. Construction is good, nice use of triangles and intakes for the wings. Nice build, good flight model.
@Daisghosh123 easy fix: Download the build, the interface will display the warning message that the build requires mod(s), then hit the “back” arrow in the bottom left of the construction screen, you’ll see the default starting point (the cockpit with the two blocks stuck to the bottom), then hit the “forward” button and the build, without the mods included, should load up.
Nice build, I really like it. And I especially like the part count, which is a huge improvement over other F-20 builds, BTW. The handling is realistic, I like the load out, especially the Slammers. Fun to fly, great work!
@EngineerOtaku this thing rolls about 120-150 degrees per second, you’re correct, too slow. Online sources cite 180-270 degrees/sec roll rate for the Flanker. Looks good, though. And it’s relatively simple, which is nice for players looking for something quick and simple. Nice balance of form and function, but, yeah, next time, make the roll snappier, like the real jet and more in line with the amped up flight performance of the rest of this build’s flight mod.
So, this one is highly similar to my Fishpot, so it’s interesting to see the build choices made by another good builder. Would love the opportunity to go over several of these differences and even do a direct comparison between our builds.
I have a suggestion: Find some of your favorite non-stock builds from users you like and do a follow up post highlighting those planes, I think people would really like that. Nice work, pretty screenshots.
I like this build a lot. Like the RL bird, it’s very stable at high speeds and low altitude and seems free of any major flying quality vices...at least that’s what I’ve read regarding how their pilots viewed the Su-7/17/22 family. Flight model is pretty good on this one, though I’m sure it would bleed energy a lot more quickly in high G turns than your model does, meh, minor issue that has more to do with the overall SP model than this particular build, I’m sure. But the ability to fly low and fast is what makes this fun, I also like the cockpit view and ejection seat work. Overall, quite nice.
So, I love a good Phantom, this one certainly looks the part, though the flight model is much more accurate on your Marauder. I have to say you’ve really improved your SP skills in the last couple of months; have you considered using the triangle and intake technique for building wings?
@SparkySparkyTheFiretruck well, the B-26 was a “hot ship”. Very high (for the time) wing loading demanded that it be flown at high speeds, higher than what her minimally trained crews were used to from prior designs, particularly during takeoff and landing, where if you get slow, you stall without room to recover. If you haven’t been taught to be very aware of and control your airspeed on final (and it wasn’t as much a big deal as it was with this airplane), the consequences would be fatal. Added to this, the short wing, small rudder and powerful engines made Vmca quite high and the consequences of getting slow fatal, as in rolling the airplane over on its back, in a single engine situation. Anyway, most of the flaws were corrected through better training, a longer wing and larger empennage and the B-26 recovered from being a “Widowmaker” to having the lowest USAAF loss rate in Europe. But, the lack of pitch trim was not a problem on this airplane, as it isn’t on nearly every airplane...the lack of YAW trim, though, is another story. With that small rudder, especially the initial design, having the rudder authority...much less the trim authority...to control the airplane must have been a workout for the leg pushing the correct rudder pedal almost to the floor and holding it there until a safe landing.
Very good build, what makes it even better is that the Marauder is little built or appreciated in the SP community, and this is a great example. Performance is very historically accurate, pitch and roll control response is very appropriate, not too fast nor too slow. Acceleration and takeoff performance is very good. It does need more nose up trim authority, at 230 mph with full nose up trim, still needs a little back stick pressure to stay level. Should be able to fly level, trimmed up, hands off. It’s better with full flaps, but it assumes a weirdly nose up attitude in level flight or on approach path with flaps down. Not sure the real life airplane flew that nose high. But speeds are realistic, nothing wildly unrealistic and it generally flies like a RL airplane. Nice. Weapons are interesting, I always like the bomber builds, they’re fun. This one is also very fun to fly around. I hit the Beast and managed not to get shot down!
Well, I really like it, but I wonder if I found an SP glitch: I advance the throttle, the engines accelerate, but the plane doesn’t move at all. I adjust the VTOL, which you’ve programmed for the flaps, so that doesn’t change the pitch...any tips on how to get this to move?
@Hedero that’s actually not that surprising, the F-5 and MiG-21 were very similar performers, which is why the U.S. uses the F-5 as an adversary simulator to this day. The F-20 was a better performer, thanks to the much better engine with more thrust, but it wasn’t light years ahead of the MiG in terms of sheer performance numbers. But the weapons systems, cockpit displays and pilot integration was better than the MiG. That aspect is much more difficult to capture in SP, but it does make sense you were able to tweak the flying performance. It’s also gratifying in that I was able to at least land in the same performance ballpark as the RL jet.
You, my friend, need to take better screenshots, the screenshot that is displayed with your post is off center, not good. This is a 1:1 model of one of the carriers at Pearl Harbor, it should have a lot more than 14 upvotes! I'll do my best to help by highlighting your build. A better screenshot (or at least, one that doesn't suck) will lead to more upvotes.
You might not want to spend too much time on that damage model...sure, it’s an interesting skill to manipulate the “verticalG” attribute in FT, but I’ve never heard of a Mirage 2000’s wings or control surfaces shearing off due to an over-G. Usually, the plane just gets “bent” in certain ways (though can’t imagine where on the Mirage, given the size of the wing root and compact fuselage), or the motor mounts need replacement, or the pilot just G’s out and the plane crashes.
@PotatoWasTaken no, absolutely not. This is a Sukhoi, the MiG-21 is a Mikoyan Gurevich. In the West, there are competing aircraft companies which design their own lines of aircraft, such as Lockheed, Boeing or Northrop Grumman. There is some cooperation, but there is a lot of competition to sell the best aircraft to the government and fulfill a contract, so there are many different approaches to each requirement. In the USSR, every aircraft manufacturer was actually a part of a single, larger state aircraft production effort which was centrally controlled. But each bureau, Sukhoi, MiG, Tupolev, etc., had a head designer, was assigned a task or requirement...in this case, to build a fast, high flying, missile armed interceptor. The similarity between the MiG-21 and the Su-9/11 is really due to the fact that TsAGI (the Soviet equivalent of NACA/NASA), determined that a tailed delta with a nose intake and central shock cone was the ideal configuration for this mission. Both Sukhoi and MiG got this information from TsAGI, the State controlled aeronautics research bureau and simply designed their respective jets, the Su-9/12 and the MiG-21. That’s the full story on why the MiG-21 and the Su-9/11 look so similar, albeit the Sukhoi is much larger.
What you’re mixing it up with is the build screen that will show the CoL moving aft when you increase the tail area. SP doesn’t really show the CoL correctly for conventional (tail aft) aircraft, it should only shows the main wing lift as the tail can be used in either capacity, nose up or nose down. But it doesn’t, it includes all the wing area, main wing and horizontal stab included, probably because there’s no way to designate a “main wing” vs. “horizontal tail”.
Well, I’m fairly certain all you have to do is nick a SAM with a single round, not cause a significant amount of damage which would require an explosive cannon shell. And using a cannon would be impossible as the physics model requires an individual round to physically make contact with the actual frame of a missile part to do anything. Normal gun rounds compute their hits differently and actually hit flying objects far, far, far more often than cannon rounds. Cannon rounds create damage much as a bomb does, by hitting the ground, exploding and creating damage in a surrounding area...if the round never hits (and they hardly ever hit flying objects), it never explodes and it never causes any damage. Try it...put cannons on a build and use them to shoot down a flying object. You won’t. Normal “Minigun” or “wing guns” are your best bet for a CIWS build.
Arbitrary, completely arbitrary. Do you realize that since there’s no actual air in SP, just calculations which simulate the effects of a body or wing moving through air, that drag is produced by parts which are submerged into other parts or out of direct airflow behind other parts?
Pretty good, simple enough to be fun, complex enough to be interesting. The biggest thing I’d change is the trim effectiveness...slower than about 230 knots/265 mph/427 kph with the flaps up and there’s not enough trim to keep the nose up. But if you lower the flaps, the nose balloons way up and you can’t even get the nose back down level until below about 180 knots/207 mph/333 kph. Very awkward. I don’t know why this keeps being a thing with otherwise great SP builds. Other than that, this is really good and fun.
Very nice build of an underappreciated subject. You only have 1,600 points, but I suspect you’ll gain many followers as you continue to improve your skills.
@WSindustries is what difficult...? Landing the F-104? Not particularly, if you know how to do it correctly. Watch the video for the speeds and power settings, which will go a long way to helping you do it correctly. If you don’t fly it correctly, then, yeah, it can be difficult in that you might not reach the runway in one piece. Try it for yourself after @asteroidbook345 uploads it, then let me know how you did!
@Dest35 sure thing. Just tag me on an unlisted and I’ll take a look.
+1Not gonna lie...I like this. I like it a lot. It reminds me of a RL T-38. I really, really like how a substantial pitch up is required at liftoff. T:W is realistic, though IMHO the wing loading is a bit low for this configuration (pointy jet with smallish wing, the T-38 is 60+ lbs/sq ft, this one is less than half that)...eh, perhaps not, given its more of a delta/diamond shaped wing. Overall, I don’t think it’s too maneuverable, in fact, I think the roll rate is a tad slow. But it’s a blast to fly and that’s most important, nice work!
+1Very nice WWII replica build, flies quite nicely, and IMHO, very realistically. Build quality is pretty good, though the lettering does stick out a little more than what I’d be satisfied with. But, overall, the flight dynamics, realistic features and thought that went into this is at a very high level, I like it, nice work!
+1Humorous. The build itself follows the outer mold line fairly accurately, with a few exceptions...the windscreen being a notable example. FedEx logo is well done, I will admit and the wrapping is pretty good. But it would look better in black, IMHO, perhaps you’ll do a more historically accurate livery soon? Flight model needs a little work, as it flies way too fast down low and way too slow up high. Highlight is the stability, which is good, the SR was a big jet, so the smooth, stable control response is what I would expect. I would increase the slow speed control responsiveness a little bit more as landing takes a bit too much anticipation (but, really, how would I know? Never even flew the SR sim). Acceleration is ridiculously fast and brake stopping power is better than a 737 on auto brakes MAX. Revising the flight model probably wouldn’t take too much to yield more accurate results: The drag points are probably in the ballpark and I would simply lower total thrust and revise the throttle input to incorporate IAS (ram air effect) and altitude. Revising the weight and fuel to RL numbers would also help greatly with realism, the RL jet was a fairly large bird at over 150,000 lbs. Last, I would revise the cockpit view to make it to approximate the RL cockpit view.
+1This one is fairly easy to fly, hover and control. Kind of a rarity around here. It’s a little too easy and stable, IMHO, but it’s not like we have a plethora of real world pilots on site, so I’m sure it’s about the right speed for the majority of players. You do have to pay attention and make positive, but small inputs to land it where you want to. I managed to land on one of the destroyer’s heli pads...first attempt, but it took a little concentration to land it without whacking the main rotor on the superstructure, which, BTW, actually is taller than the aft superstructure itself. I should go try and shwack the convoy next. Fun. Nice work.
+1@Numbers yes, it's like landing a giant, heavy, twitchy glider that doesn't want to stop flying. The preferred landing attitude was "slightly tailwheel first", which meant the wing was stalled and not producing lift ("flying") upon touchdown. As for the chase car not being there, there were actually a number of scenarios where that would occur. Most frequently, when making a sharp turn onto the runway (AKA "90 degree run-in"), if you weren't careful, you could spin out in the chase car. What typically followed was a "You're on your own!" call on the radio. But we trained to do "no voice" landings, so we could land the jet fairly well without the chase car, if we had to. I'd, from time to time, fly a practice sortie and request all no voice landings.
+1Quite nice and engaging for what it is: A simple Sabre build. The guns are kinda OTT...the .50 cals certainly had the rate of fire, but your build’s guns also just shred anything they touch. The .50 cal made a lot of holes, but US pilots wanted more punch, which is why the M39 and eventually M61 cannons were developed (interesting aside on the “Gun Val” Sabres tested with the M39 cannon). Anyway, easy to fly, roll rate is just a bit too slow, but nice, semi-realistic rendition that’s simple, nice work!
+1I don’t know what you’re doing on your builds, but they look really great. Some builds look unrealistic and cartoony, not yours.
+1@Hedero, maybe. It’s a lot of work and I haven’t started anything lately, so it’ll take awhile even if I started today. But I do occasionally think about what jet I would build next, a B-47, an A-4, an F-104 or a B-52 are all on the top of my potentials list.
+1@KangaKangaTheRoo I’ve already incorporated the decreased supersonic maneuverability feature into both my Su-11 and my F-20. But the control surfaces move fully, as they did IRL.
+1@KangaKangaTheRoo the supersonic maneuverability issue isn’t unique to the Hun, it’s a consequence of the localized shockwave effects blanking control surfaces. The all moving horizontal slab, vice elevator at the back of a horizontal stab, is due to this issue. Most supersonic aircraft experience this phenomenon.
+1@KangaKangaTheRoo the definition of “irreversible” in this context is that they would always move through their entire range. No, the Hun didn’t have the problem, at least not as you’re describing it.
+1@KangaKangaTheRoo describe this “locked control surfaces” problem with the F-100? The Hun had a few problems, many of which were due to the supersonic regime, which was new to an operational fighter and most of which were sorted out in the first few years of operation. There was inertia coupling, which killed George Welch during testing, and which led to the larger vertical stab, the high landing speed and a tendency to do the dreaded “Sabre Dance”, partially due to the lack of flaps on the A model jet, which killed many young fighter pilots. There was also structural problems which required bracing to fix, but I’m completely unfamiliar of a tendency for the flight controls to “lock up” in flight. The Hun had hydraulically operated, irreversible flight controls, as do most jets like this, which makes me doubt some aerodynamic phenomenon would lead to locked controls...do you have more details of what you’re describing?
+1Well, it’s about 5x heavier and 50% larger than the RL airplane, but the build itself looks really nice and the customization, while not original to the RL lane, captures the whole customized sport plane vibe. Also flies fairly well.
+1You did the one thing right that almost everyone gets wrong with the Hornet: the landing gear is sufficiently beefy, just like the real jet. It would have been great if you could have had a real cockpit view as it’s almost impossible to land on the boat without it!
+1@KnightOfRen well, that’s pretty cool. I should remaster this thing...
+1Pretty good, actually. Acceleration , turning and roll performance from my brief flight on mobile all seem realistic. Yup, cannons are difficult to impossible to use air to air...SP’s limitation, not your fault, though I do understand there is a workaround. Construction is good, nice use of triangles and intakes for the wings. Nice build, good flight model.
+1@Daisghosh123 easy fix: Download the build, the interface will display the warning message that the build requires mod(s), then hit the “back” arrow in the bottom left of the construction screen, you’ll see the default starting point (the cockpit with the two blocks stuck to the bottom), then hit the “forward” button and the build, without the mods included, should load up.
+1Nice build, I really like it. And I especially like the part count, which is a huge improvement over other F-20 builds, BTW. The handling is realistic, I like the load out, especially the Slammers. Fun to fly, great work!
+1@EngineerOtaku this thing rolls about 120-150 degrees per second, you’re correct, too slow. Online sources cite 180-270 degrees/sec roll rate for the Flanker. Looks good, though. And it’s relatively simple, which is nice for players looking for something quick and simple. Nice balance of form and function, but, yeah, next time, make the roll snappier, like the real jet and more in line with the amped up flight performance of the rest of this build’s flight mod.
+1Only 36 upvotes thus far? That’s a crime!
+1Geez, will someone tell me where/how to find the .105 Beta on iOS?
+1So, this one is highly similar to my Fishpot, so it’s interesting to see the build choices made by another good builder. Would love the opportunity to go over several of these differences and even do a direct comparison between our builds.
+1I have a suggestion: Find some of your favorite non-stock builds from users you like and do a follow up post highlighting those planes, I think people would really like that. Nice work, pretty screenshots.
+1I like this build a lot. Like the RL bird, it’s very stable at high speeds and low altitude and seems free of any major flying quality vices...at least that’s what I’ve read regarding how their pilots viewed the Su-7/17/22 family. Flight model is pretty good on this one, though I’m sure it would bleed energy a lot more quickly in high G turns than your model does, meh, minor issue that has more to do with the overall SP model than this particular build, I’m sure. But the ability to fly low and fast is what makes this fun, I also like the cockpit view and ejection seat work. Overall, quite nice.
+1So, I love a good Phantom, this one certainly looks the part, though the flight model is much more accurate on your Marauder. I have to say you’ve really improved your SP skills in the last couple of months; have you considered using the triangle and intake technique for building wings?
+1@SparkySparkyTheFiretruck well, the B-26 was a “hot ship”. Very high (for the time) wing loading demanded that it be flown at high speeds, higher than what her minimally trained crews were used to from prior designs, particularly during takeoff and landing, where if you get slow, you stall without room to recover. If you haven’t been taught to be very aware of and control your airspeed on final (and it wasn’t as much a big deal as it was with this airplane), the consequences would be fatal. Added to this, the short wing, small rudder and powerful engines made Vmca quite high and the consequences of getting slow fatal, as in rolling the airplane over on its back, in a single engine situation. Anyway, most of the flaws were corrected through better training, a longer wing and larger empennage and the B-26 recovered from being a “Widowmaker” to having the lowest USAAF loss rate in Europe. But, the lack of pitch trim was not a problem on this airplane, as it isn’t on nearly every airplane...the lack of YAW trim, though, is another story. With that small rudder, especially the initial design, having the rudder authority...much less the trim authority...to control the airplane must have been a workout for the leg pushing the correct rudder pedal almost to the floor and holding it there until a safe landing.
+1Very good build, what makes it even better is that the Marauder is little built or appreciated in the SP community, and this is a great example. Performance is very historically accurate, pitch and roll control response is very appropriate, not too fast nor too slow. Acceleration and takeoff performance is very good. It does need more nose up trim authority, at 230 mph with full nose up trim, still needs a little back stick pressure to stay level. Should be able to fly level, trimmed up, hands off. It’s better with full flaps, but it assumes a weirdly nose up attitude in level flight or on approach path with flaps down. Not sure the real life airplane flew that nose high. But speeds are realistic, nothing wildly unrealistic and it generally flies like a RL airplane. Nice. Weapons are interesting, I always like the bomber builds, they’re fun. This one is also very fun to fly around. I hit the Beast and managed not to get shot down!
+1Well, I really like it, but I wonder if I found an SP glitch: I advance the throttle, the engines accelerate, but the plane doesn’t move at all. I adjust the VTOL, which you’ve programmed for the flaps, so that doesn’t change the pitch...any tips on how to get this to move?
+1@Hedero that’s actually not that surprising, the F-5 and MiG-21 were very similar performers, which is why the U.S. uses the F-5 as an adversary simulator to this day. The F-20 was a better performer, thanks to the much better engine with more thrust, but it wasn’t light years ahead of the MiG in terms of sheer performance numbers. But the weapons systems, cockpit displays and pilot integration was better than the MiG. That aspect is much more difficult to capture in SP, but it does make sense you were able to tweak the flying performance. It’s also gratifying in that I was able to at least land in the same performance ballpark as the RL jet.
+1Probably the best screenshot in the history of screenshots, luckily the build lives up to the screenshot.
+1You, my friend, need to take better screenshots, the screenshot that is displayed with your post is off center, not good. This is a 1:1 model of one of the carriers at Pearl Harbor, it should have a lot more than 14 upvotes! I'll do my best to help by highlighting your build. A better screenshot (or at least, one that doesn't suck) will lead to more upvotes.
+1You might not want to spend too much time on that damage model...sure, it’s an interesting skill to manipulate the “verticalG” attribute in FT, but I’ve never heard of a Mirage 2000’s wings or control surfaces shearing off due to an over-G. Usually, the plane just gets “bent” in certain ways (though can’t imagine where on the Mirage, given the size of the wing root and compact fuselage), or the motor mounts need replacement, or the pilot just G’s out and the plane crashes.
+1Well, in spite of the anime chick in your profile pic, this one...any Sukhoi, really...deserves an upvote.
+1@PotatoWasTaken no, absolutely not. This is a Sukhoi, the MiG-21 is a Mikoyan Gurevich. In the West, there are competing aircraft companies which design their own lines of aircraft, such as Lockheed, Boeing or Northrop Grumman. There is some cooperation, but there is a lot of competition to sell the best aircraft to the government and fulfill a contract, so there are many different approaches to each requirement. In the USSR, every aircraft manufacturer was actually a part of a single, larger state aircraft production effort which was centrally controlled. But each bureau, Sukhoi, MiG, Tupolev, etc., had a head designer, was assigned a task or requirement...in this case, to build a fast, high flying, missile armed interceptor. The similarity between the MiG-21 and the Su-9/11 is really due to the fact that TsAGI (the Soviet equivalent of NACA/NASA), determined that a tailed delta with a nose intake and central shock cone was the ideal configuration for this mission. Both Sukhoi and MiG got this information from TsAGI, the State controlled aeronautics research bureau and simply designed their respective jets, the Su-9/12 and the MiG-21. That’s the full story on why the MiG-21 and the Su-9/11 look so similar, albeit the Sukhoi is much larger.
+1Ninetieth!
+114,000 lbs? The real thing has an empty weight a little over 30,000 lbs and a more than 81,000 lb max takeoff weight.
+1What you’re mixing it up with is the build screen that will show the CoL moving aft when you increase the tail area. SP doesn’t really show the CoL correctly for conventional (tail aft) aircraft, it should only shows the main wing lift as the tail can be used in either capacity, nose up or nose down. But it doesn’t, it includes all the wing area, main wing and horizontal stab included, probably because there’s no way to designate a “main wing” vs. “horizontal tail”.
+1@CremosoMaster yes, another way of saying that, or angle the stabs with the leading edge slightly down a degree or two.
+1@BroAeronautics that might work, actually.
+1Well, I’m fairly certain all you have to do is nick a SAM with a single round, not cause a significant amount of damage which would require an explosive cannon shell. And using a cannon would be impossible as the physics model requires an individual round to physically make contact with the actual frame of a missile part to do anything. Normal gun rounds compute their hits differently and actually hit flying objects far, far, far more often than cannon rounds. Cannon rounds create damage much as a bomb does, by hitting the ground, exploding and creating damage in a surrounding area...if the round never hits (and they hardly ever hit flying objects), it never explodes and it never causes any damage. Try it...put cannons on a build and use them to shoot down a flying object. You won’t. Normal “Minigun” or “wing guns” are your best bet for a CIWS build.
+1@jamesPLANESii 👍
+1What happened to Randomusername?
+1Interesting build, fairly realistic, though it really should have flaps. I like this design as well, all blunt and pugnacious.
+1@An2k you’re trying to do a hammerhead stall in SP? The problem is with SP, not you, rudder dynamics aren’t that accurate. Which build are you using?
+1Arbitrary, completely arbitrary. Do you realize that since there’s no actual air in SP, just calculations which simulate the effects of a body or wing moving through air, that drag is produced by parts which are submerged into other parts or out of direct airflow behind other parts?
+1Pretty good, simple enough to be fun, complex enough to be interesting. The biggest thing I’d change is the trim effectiveness...slower than about 230 knots/265 mph/427 kph with the flaps up and there’s not enough trim to keep the nose up. But if you lower the flaps, the nose balloons way up and you can’t even get the nose back down level until below about 180 knots/207 mph/333 kph. Very awkward. I don’t know why this keeps being a thing with otherwise great SP builds. Other than that, this is really good and fun.
+1Very nice build of an underappreciated subject. You only have 1,600 points, but I suspect you’ll gain many followers as you continue to improve your skills.
+1Wow, an absolutely beautiful build and a unique subject. Well thought out, designed and constructed with interesting features.
+1@WSindustries is what difficult...? Landing the F-104? Not particularly, if you know how to do it correctly. Watch the video for the speeds and power settings, which will go a long way to helping you do it correctly. If you don’t fly it correctly, then, yeah, it can be difficult in that you might not reach the runway in one piece. Try it for yourself after @asteroidbook345 uploads it, then let me know how you did!
+1