I can land it fairly easily. Just deploy the speedbrakes (AG2), go to idle or nearly so, passing 300 KIAS, lower the gear, then the flaps to full, as you approach 200 KIAS, push the power up to 50-60% depending on weight. BE SURE TO RETRACT THE SPEEDBARKES! You make the mistake of huge power corrections. At this time, you should be ready to start down on glide path. Hold no slower than 165 KIAS with 50-60% power. No problem, she lands nicely.
Well, fuel in jets is typically measured in pounds or kilograms, but to match your question, I’ll use liters. In the 1960s, fighter type aircraft carried anywhere from 2,300-2,400 liters (MiG-21 and BAC Lighting to 7,500 liters (F-4). The greatest internal fuel capacity carried by a fighter, at that time or any other, was most likely the Tupolev Tu-28P “Fiddler”, which held the title as the “world’s largest fighter”, but was really an interceptor aircraft, which probably carried 16,700 liters of fuel internally. Internal fuel capacity varied widely, but it was invariably based on the size of the aircraft. The bigger the internal volume, the more gas the jet will probably carry, as fighters typically will fill every possible open space not taken up with cockpit, electronics, hydraulic systems, flight controls or intake ducts with fuel. Additionally, almost every single jet fighter out there will carry external tanks to increase fuel carried, though they are the first thing jettisoned going into an air to air engagement. Given all the variables, it might be difficult to estimate a time aloft, but I’m going to attempt to give one to you. Bear in mind that mission profile also impacts time aloft greatly. A low level, high speed interdiction profile will burn far more gas than a CAP loiter. And afterburner usage burned a lot of gas, which is one reason why air to air engagements don’t usually last more than 2 minutes. Given all this, unrefueled mission durations (and most NATO profiles, even in training, included air to air refueling) were anywhere from 45 mins (MiG-21 and Lightning) to 2 hrs (Phantom). Now, you’re probably asking this because SP fuel burn is too high. I contend, though, most SP users simply fly around at 100% power on power multiplied engines, which IRL would burn fuel just as fast. This results in running out of gas within 5 mins. I can stretch out a flight on a realistically loaded jet to 20 mins or more, long enough to want to just land and be done, with the added benefit of a replica build handling and flying more realistically as the jet is heavy at the start and much less so at the end. I hate, hate, hate unlimited fuel!
Overall, very good build. This one deserves an upvote solely for the way you built the cowling, which gives me hope for a good P-47 build here. The flight model is also pretty good, turn rate and performance is fairly close. The roll rate should be faster, IMHO, and the trim authority is lacking and the flap extension pitches the nose up waaaaayyyy too high (common SP error, perhaps I’ll post something about this trend). But it takes off and lands really well and flies nicely. Here’s a Spotlight, nice build!
Here’s another thing I’ve learned which may help: The published SP “Wing Area” in the stats adds up ALL the lifting surfaces, whereas RL numbers almost always just use the actual lifting surfaces. So when building, I always size the main wings to get the published RL area and loading. Only after that do I add the appropriate amount of horizontal and vertical stab in order to get the correct performance. Though I haven’t torn into your build, I suspect your “main wings” might have less than the 200 square feet of lifting surface (I subsequently analyzed your build’s lift and the main wings plus the structural wings were 251 sq ft and the main wings by themselves 186 sq ft, so your build probably has the lift of a Starfighter with flaps down or at least partially extended?)...perhaps the wings in the fuse and the main wings we can see are around 200 sq ft? That little bit of info really helps in building realistically behaving builds.
While I agree that replicating the “high lift” devices would be key to an accurate 104, to keep the takeoff and landing performance in the realm is the possible, not sure wings in the fuse would be the way I would go with that. I wish we could slap those things on a hinge and lower them to horizontal to produce lift, but that doesn’t seem to work well. However, I don’t know who’s running around recommending “body lift”, you’re the second builder who’s spoken about it. On the F-16/18/MiG-29, other aircraft of that shape and generation, it makes sense, but those are fairly specific shapes designed specifically for that characteristic. The 104 is a tube designed prior to the M2-F2 lifting body flights...no body lift there, at least nothing appreciable, it’s also not present on the T-38, 737, F-84/86, MiG-21, or most of the other aircraft of that era. Flying wings are an exception, their bodies and all wings!
Wow, this truly is your most impressive work, at least as of late...well conceptualized and well executed. It flies beautifully. Did I tell you I am enamored of the Art Deco period? This airship is the perfect embodiment of that aesthetic.
Cool, next time you can try using intakes for your flaps and control surfaces as they produce better, sharper trailing edges with the added benefit of being able to angle them as required to follow the correct outline.
It’s basically a programming language that you can use to take different inputs from the game (true airspeed, altitude, etc.) and modify the actions of your rotators. Say, you want to modify your horizontal stabilizer rotators to limit movement a certain amount as your Gs increase, you can put the expression into the “input” field which says something such as: “1/VerticalG”, so that as your G increases, your input to the horizontal stab becomes less. It really gives the builder a huge amount of flexibility to create builds which emulate different RL functions.
Would have been a bit faster than the RL jet, but good use of a funky trees activated speedbrake to limit the top speed. Turns fairly rapidly as well, the missiles are quite good and it’s fun to fly.
Great build, very true to life, though I’ve never actually flown a Lightning! Flies like everything I’ve read, so upvote from me and it’s on my favorites (or is it “favourites”???) list!
Well, as you say, the base game now incorporates Funky Trees, as well as the ability to change the inputs via the in game Overload tool, so we can do those things already. Or are you talking about including these things in the basic menus for the stock surfaces?
@OrangeConnor well, the really long and detailed description is partially intentional. The abbreviated flight manual, called the “Dash-1” for the RL F-20A (available for sale online) is around 340 pages. Which, believe it or not, is fairly short as far as flight manuals go. Pilots are expected to know a great deal about the aircraft they fly and recall the information almost reflexively. I remember my first USAF flying course, flight screening in the mighty T-41 Mescalero (militarized Cessna 172 trainer) and the hours and hours of study, quizzing and bookwork associated with learning to fly that simple airplane. The first part of every Air Force flight training day typically begins with “stand up”, where the students are quizzed and then given a hypothetical emergency scenario they must correctly solve from memory, on their own, all while standing in front of their peers. All my builds attempt to convey some aspect of the piloting experience, from how they fly, to making the player remember their fuel state or pay the consequence (I never, ever use unlimited fuel), or remembering some detail regarding the plane’s flight characteristics that will keep them “alive”, etc. That’s partially why I do things this way, thanks for commenting.
@Viper28 gives only part of the answer. The root cause of “autoroll” may be a miscalculated drag model...which isn’t miscalculated at all, but simply caused by asymmetry in your build. I bet you used the mirror tool when constructing your build, did you not? The mirroring tool is to blame. When SP mirrors a part, it just spawns a part on the opposite side of your build and that part will attach itself to the closest attach points and not necessarily the attach points which are symmetric from the original side. Additionally, mirroring parts which are not the outside most parts (I.e., the last part added to a build), will frequently spawn extra parts...they’re not easy to find, but if you ever try and remove a part and suddenly you have two of them, the removed part with the original one still at the original location, you’ve found a duplicate part. The best solution for an almost completed build like yours is to disconnect each part and reattach manually to ensure all the connect points match symmetrically on each side. A simpler work around is to add a little weight on the opposite side of the autoroll in order to balance out the build...it kinda works, but it’s not a perfect solution. Avoiding the problem in the first place is really the cleanest way to prevent this, but requires a methodical approach to building. Whenever I mirror a part, I detach the original part first using the attach tool in Designer Suite, move it away from the desired location a set number of nudges (I tend to use 8 or 12 nudges), mirror that one part only, then manually reattach both parts to the correct, symmetrical attach points and nudge both parts back into position. It’s a pain and time consuming, but worth is so as to prevent autoroll.
@MrAir420 I used the following Funky Trees formula for the horizontal stabilizer input: “clamp((clamp((Pitch+Trim/1)+(GearDown/8),-1,1)(1-clamp01(floor(TAS/335))0.33)),-1,1)”. The part of the equation which limits the movement is the “clamp01(floor(TAS/335))*0.33))” in which the movement is only limited when the result of TAS/335 is a positive value by the “clamp01”, that is, when the aircraft True Airspeed exceeds 335 m/s. Then, the rotator is then limited to 2/3 it’s total movement when the aircraft speed exceeds 335 m/s. The transonic maneuverability transition a bit abrupt and if I were to do it again, I might attempt to make a smoothly decreasing pitch rate, but it does the job. Thanks for asking and if you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to ask.
@F104Deathtrap you noticed the little drop tank surprise I put in there...guess you’re going to have to report to the squadron commander and answer to why you over-Gd the drop tank! Also, yes, the aileron reversal is intentional and due to the symmetric wing...I suggest the pull, unload, roll, pull method, or use the rudder to roll it at high AoA. Anyway, I’m very pleased that someone took the time to notice all its little foibles and I’m glad you enjoyed it!
@Freerider2142 well, like the F-5, it’s not carrier compatible...really. I can land it on deck and catch the wire with the emergency hook, but I didn’t put the catapult attachment on it. It’s strictly an adversary simulator for training Navy fighter crews on how to engage smaller, fast and more maneuverable adversary aircraft. Glad you like it otherwise and stay tuned for one of my upcoming aircraft, which may very well be a full up carrier jet.
@Oxidiz3 wow, you picked an oldie to upvote. This one is certainly simple and I liked it, though building it on my old iPhone 5 was a bit of a chore. It isn’t 1:1, because I couldn’t resize the engines as there wasn’t Fine Tuner available for iOS and I wanted to keep it proportional. It also came before drag reduction, so the performance isn’t what it should be, though it is fun and simple to fly around.
Flies well, stable and fast, appropriate turn rate (I haven’t put my G meter on it yet, but it seems properly British), acceleration is very good, like the RL jet (so I’m told). Simple, not overly complex, like jets of that era. Nice build.
AKA Gloster Javelin...nice flight model, very appropriate, not overpowered, gives it very realistic acceleration and flight performance. Cannon effects are very cool, though it’s actually impossible to hit anything with them, I really like using those normally air to ground missiles in the air to air mode. Nice work!
@BroAeronautics it is too bad, the F-20 was a logical advancement of the F-5 and developed with very little fuss within Northrop itself, not in response to a contract competition. As a result, NGA, to this day, approaches working with the government very differently than they did before the F-20, due to the drubbing they took as a result of not being able to sell any of these jets.
Ok, approximately 18,000 deaths have been caused by the flu this season, as compared to 3,000 Coronovirus deaths. The risk factors making someone truly susceptible to dying from either are the same: compromised immune systems, underlying health problems (I.e., cancer), very elderly or very young. Also, the mortality rate has been readjusted down to .6% and the virus has mutated to a much less severe form. Sure, the uncertainty and lack of understanding concerning Covid-19 is a bit worrisome, but most health professionals are coming around to the fact that this is very much like the flu. So, are you worried about getting the flu and dying, even if you didn’t get this year’s flu vaccine? I’m not and you’re also probably ok. We have a “pandemic” caused by a mutation of the common cold and the world is in panic over it.
@LeonardoEngineering this one is more blue than the one you’re thinking of...the prototype’s “BMW blue” color. This one is going to be a “what if” build, so I’m building this one as a fully realized fighter in squadron service with either the USN’s VFC-12 “Fighting Omars”, VFC-13 “Saints” or the USAF’s 57th Wing...all aggressor units. The Omars has this very striking grey-blue paint with light blue markings, which is what you see on my build right now.
This is just the thing the MoD would dream up to try and save a few million pounds. Then, 17 years into development, they’ll discover that removing an engine, the reheat and the advanced air-to-air radar is going to cost 25 million pounds more per jet than if they had just bought more Typhoons...then India will drop out of the planned buy and the per unit cost will go up another 127 million pounds. Then, when on the cusp of squadron service, the Labour Party, now in office, under the “leadership” of Jeremy Corbyn, back from political exile (for some reason no one can fathom), will ignominiously cancel the program, drag all 18 examples to the bone yard and chop the wings off while the BBC streams the event on the internet. Nice jet, BTW...
@ChisP where did you get 16-17 seconds for 180 degrees of turn? Certainly with bombs and tanks, it should turn much slower than when clean, but I assure you that a clean F-18 does not take 34 seconds to make a full turn at corner velocity. Heck, a standard rate turn, typically flown at about 30 degrees of bank (speed dependent) takes 120 seconds.
You’re right, there is no such thing as the perfect build. But this one is very good and flies realistically. The acceleration, roll rate, turning performance and overall speed and altitude performance are exactly what I would expect from a fighter of the 1950s. Also, the numbers match the RL numbers closely. The landing is tricky, which seems the most difficult thing to perfect and the braking performance is too good, but those are minor things as with a little practice, one can learn to land this well. I’m edified that you were inspired by my post and I’m sorry I didn’t see this one before...nice work!
@TheFantasticTyphoon well, with a BS in History from USAFA, I agree...the Japanese never fought in N Africa...however, the decision to switch to the yellow outlined insignia was based on the fear that the “red dot” would be mistaken for the Japanese insignia. The yellow outline insignia was meant to be used in all theaters on USAAF aircraft (standardization) ... however, as the strategy at that point of the war called for the major effort to be against Germany and Italy while “holding” the Japanese in the Pacific, the yellow outline is primarily associated with the North Africa campaign, though it was also used in the Pacific and on USN aircraft as well. To this day, that is the case ... Google “Operation Torch Insignia” and see what you get ... But, there are exceptions to every rule and that insignia was used only for a short while. That’s why, for the sake of brevity, I called it the “North Africa Insignia”, though, perhaps, I should have named it the “Yellow Outline Insignia”. But that doesn’t quite ring the same way as the “North Africa Insignia”, does it? You seem to have an interest in WWII history, which I still find immensely fascinating to this day...if you ever would like to discuss the subject, you’ll always find me a willing participant.
@ErickvCamilo actually, that would be really simple, especially the modern Brazilian insignia...what exactly are you looking for? The modern roundel by itself?
@Saviggriffin it’s located at the Arctic Island north of Yeager. Take off from Yeager, make a 180 degree turn and fly a heading of 355 degrees. You’ll get there before too long. Once in range, the Arctic Base will attempt to shoot you down.
As for this specific build, I flew it at 350 knots IAS, which I guess is about the speed a jet like this would fly a loop. I looped it in 2,500 ft...which is way more G than any jet could fly without the pilot passing out. For a loop at 350 knots, it should take around 5,000’-6,000’. So, yes, it turns better than it should, even accounting for the pilot pulling harder than he should in a loop.
No, not true...many trainers have an instantaneous turn rate as good as any fighter. The difference is in sustained turn rate and the speeds at which those turns are flown, especially when compared to straight wing fighters such as this one. A T-38 pulls 7.33 Gs and the F-16 pulls 9 Gs...the difference is that a lightweight F-16 can pull a 9 G turn while remaining level, while a T-38 will need to trade altitude or airspeed to maintain that 7.33 G turn as it has far less thrust than the Viper. Also, a straight winged trainer like your build can turn as well as most fighters, it flies that turn at a far lower airspeed than a fighter. However, a 4 G turn flown at 250 knots IAS is smaller than a 9 G turn flown at 600 knots IAS, so it’s a fallacy to say a trainer does not turn as well as a fighter, because, often, they do.
I can land it fairly easily. Just deploy the speedbrakes (AG2), go to idle or nearly so, passing 300 KIAS, lower the gear, then the flaps to full, as you approach 200 KIAS, push the power up to 50-60% depending on weight. BE SURE TO RETRACT THE SPEEDBARKES! You make the mistake of huge power corrections. At this time, you should be ready to start down on glide path. Hold no slower than 165 KIAS with 50-60% power. No problem, she lands nicely.
+1Well, fuel in jets is typically measured in pounds or kilograms, but to match your question, I’ll use liters. In the 1960s, fighter type aircraft carried anywhere from 2,300-2,400 liters (MiG-21 and BAC Lighting to 7,500 liters (F-4). The greatest internal fuel capacity carried by a fighter, at that time or any other, was most likely the Tupolev Tu-28P “Fiddler”, which held the title as the “world’s largest fighter”, but was really an interceptor aircraft, which probably carried 16,700 liters of fuel internally. Internal fuel capacity varied widely, but it was invariably based on the size of the aircraft. The bigger the internal volume, the more gas the jet will probably carry, as fighters typically will fill every possible open space not taken up with cockpit, electronics, hydraulic systems, flight controls or intake ducts with fuel. Additionally, almost every single jet fighter out there will carry external tanks to increase fuel carried, though they are the first thing jettisoned going into an air to air engagement. Given all the variables, it might be difficult to estimate a time aloft, but I’m going to attempt to give one to you. Bear in mind that mission profile also impacts time aloft greatly. A low level, high speed interdiction profile will burn far more gas than a CAP loiter. And afterburner usage burned a lot of gas, which is one reason why air to air engagements don’t usually last more than 2 minutes. Given all this, unrefueled mission durations (and most NATO profiles, even in training, included air to air refueling) were anywhere from 45 mins (MiG-21 and Lightning) to 2 hrs (Phantom). Now, you’re probably asking this because SP fuel burn is too high. I contend, though, most SP users simply fly around at 100% power on power multiplied engines, which IRL would burn fuel just as fast. This results in running out of gas within 5 mins. I can stretch out a flight on a realistically loaded jet to 20 mins or more, long enough to want to just land and be done, with the added benefit of a replica build handling and flying more realistically as the jet is heavy at the start and much less so at the end. I hate, hate, hate unlimited fuel!
+1Overall, very good build. This one deserves an upvote solely for the way you built the cowling, which gives me hope for a good P-47 build here. The flight model is also pretty good, turn rate and performance is fairly close. The roll rate should be faster, IMHO, and the trim authority is lacking and the flap extension pitches the nose up waaaaayyyy too high (common SP error, perhaps I’ll post something about this trend). But it takes off and lands really well and flies nicely. Here’s a Spotlight, nice build!
+1Great work, I wasn’t even aware of the Gloster racing floatplanes...beautiful machines.
+1Here’s another thing I’ve learned which may help: The published SP “Wing Area” in the stats adds up ALL the lifting surfaces, whereas RL numbers almost always just use the actual lifting surfaces. So when building, I always size the main wings to get the published RL area and loading. Only after that do I add the appropriate amount of horizontal and vertical stab in order to get the correct performance. Though I haven’t torn into your build, I suspect your “main wings” might have less than the 200 square feet of lifting surface (I subsequently analyzed your build’s lift and the main wings plus the structural wings were 251 sq ft and the main wings by themselves 186 sq ft, so your build probably has the lift of a Starfighter with flaps down or at least partially extended?)...perhaps the wings in the fuse and the main wings we can see are around 200 sq ft? That little bit of info really helps in building realistically behaving builds.
+1While I agree that replicating the “high lift” devices would be key to an accurate 104, to keep the takeoff and landing performance in the realm is the possible, not sure wings in the fuse would be the way I would go with that. I wish we could slap those things on a hinge and lower them to horizontal to produce lift, but that doesn’t seem to work well. However, I don’t know who’s running around recommending “body lift”, you’re the second builder who’s spoken about it. On the F-16/18/MiG-29, other aircraft of that shape and generation, it makes sense, but those are fairly specific shapes designed specifically for that characteristic. The 104 is a tube designed prior to the M2-F2 lifting body flights...no body lift there, at least nothing appreciable, it’s also not present on the T-38, 737, F-84/86, MiG-21, or most of the other aircraft of that era. Flying wings are an exception, their bodies and all wings!
+1Wow, this truly is your most impressive work, at least as of late...well conceptualized and well executed. It flies beautifully. Did I tell you I am enamored of the Art Deco period? This airship is the perfect embodiment of that aesthetic.
+1Did you mean to say "Funky Trees" or "Junky Trees"...? ; )
+1Von Hubert...? Is that you?!? It is you, it IS you!!!
+1Cool, next time you can try using intakes for your flaps and control surfaces as they produce better, sharper trailing edges with the added benefit of being able to angle them as required to follow the correct outline.
+1It’s basically a programming language that you can use to take different inputs from the game (true airspeed, altitude, etc.) and modify the actions of your rotators. Say, you want to modify your horizontal stabilizer rotators to limit movement a certain amount as your Gs increase, you can put the expression into the “input” field which says something such as: “1/VerticalG”, so that as your G increases, your input to the horizontal stab becomes less. It really gives the builder a huge amount of flexibility to create builds which emulate different RL functions.
+1Would have been a bit faster than the RL jet, but good use of a funky trees activated speedbrake to limit the top speed. Turns fairly rapidly as well, the missiles are quite good and it’s fun to fly.
+1Great build, very true to life, though I’ve never actually flown a Lightning! Flies like everything I’ve read, so upvote from me and it’s on my favorites (or is it “favourites”???) list!
+1Well, as you say, the base game now incorporates Funky Trees, as well as the ability to change the inputs via the in game Overload tool, so we can do those things already. Or are you talking about including these things in the basic menus for the stock surfaces?
+1@OrangeConnor well, the really long and detailed description is partially intentional. The abbreviated flight manual, called the “Dash-1” for the RL F-20A (available for sale online) is around 340 pages. Which, believe it or not, is fairly short as far as flight manuals go. Pilots are expected to know a great deal about the aircraft they fly and recall the information almost reflexively. I remember my first USAF flying course, flight screening in the mighty T-41 Mescalero (militarized Cessna 172 trainer) and the hours and hours of study, quizzing and bookwork associated with learning to fly that simple airplane. The first part of every Air Force flight training day typically begins with “stand up”, where the students are quizzed and then given a hypothetical emergency scenario they must correctly solve from memory, on their own, all while standing in front of their peers. All my builds attempt to convey some aspect of the piloting experience, from how they fly, to making the player remember their fuel state or pay the consequence (I never, ever use unlimited fuel), or remembering some detail regarding the plane’s flight characteristics that will keep them “alive”, etc. That’s partially why I do things this way, thanks for commenting.
+1@Viper28 gives only part of the answer. The root cause of “autoroll” may be a miscalculated drag model...which isn’t miscalculated at all, but simply caused by asymmetry in your build. I bet you used the mirror tool when constructing your build, did you not? The mirroring tool is to blame. When SP mirrors a part, it just spawns a part on the opposite side of your build and that part will attach itself to the closest attach points and not necessarily the attach points which are symmetric from the original side. Additionally, mirroring parts which are not the outside most parts (I.e., the last part added to a build), will frequently spawn extra parts...they’re not easy to find, but if you ever try and remove a part and suddenly you have two of them, the removed part with the original one still at the original location, you’ve found a duplicate part. The best solution for an almost completed build like yours is to disconnect each part and reattach manually to ensure all the connect points match symmetrically on each side. A simpler work around is to add a little weight on the opposite side of the autoroll in order to balance out the build...it kinda works, but it’s not a perfect solution. Avoiding the problem in the first place is really the cleanest way to prevent this, but requires a methodical approach to building. Whenever I mirror a part, I detach the original part first using the attach tool in Designer Suite, move it away from the desired location a set number of nudges (I tend to use 8 or 12 nudges), mirror that one part only, then manually reattach both parts to the correct, symmetrical attach points and nudge both parts back into position. It’s a pain and time consuming, but worth is so as to prevent autoroll.
+1@MrAir420 I used the following Funky Trees formula for the horizontal stabilizer input: “clamp((clamp((Pitch+Trim/1)+(GearDown/8),-1,1)(1-clamp01(floor(TAS/335))0.33)),-1,1)”. The part of the equation which limits the movement is the “clamp01(floor(TAS/335))*0.33))” in which the movement is only limited when the result of TAS/335 is a positive value by the “clamp01”, that is, when the aircraft True Airspeed exceeds 335 m/s. Then, the rotator is then limited to 2/3 it’s total movement when the aircraft speed exceeds 335 m/s. The transonic maneuverability transition a bit abrupt and if I were to do it again, I might attempt to make a smoothly decreasing pitch rate, but it does the job. Thanks for asking and if you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to ask.
+1@F104Deathtrap you noticed the little drop tank surprise I put in there...guess you’re going to have to report to the squadron commander and answer to why you over-Gd the drop tank! Also, yes, the aileron reversal is intentional and due to the symmetric wing...I suggest the pull, unload, roll, pull method, or use the rudder to roll it at high AoA. Anyway, I’m very pleased that someone took the time to notice all its little foibles and I’m glad you enjoyed it!
+1This thing is really cool...T1 and T2 are two of the best movies ever made, it’s too bad they made any more beyond those two, though!
+1@Freerider2142 well, like the F-5, it’s not carrier compatible...really. I can land it on deck and catch the wire with the emergency hook, but I didn’t put the catapult attachment on it. It’s strictly an adversary simulator for training Navy fighter crews on how to engage smaller, fast and more maneuverable adversary aircraft. Glad you like it otherwise and stay tuned for one of my upcoming aircraft, which may very well be a full up carrier jet.
+1@Oxidiz3 wow, you picked an oldie to upvote. This one is certainly simple and I liked it, though building it on my old iPhone 5 was a bit of a chore. It isn’t 1:1, because I couldn’t resize the engines as there wasn’t Fine Tuner available for iOS and I wanted to keep it proportional. It also came before drag reduction, so the performance isn’t what it should be, though it is fun and simple to fly around.
+1Flies well, stable and fast, appropriate turn rate (I haven’t put my G meter on it yet, but it seems properly British), acceleration is very good, like the RL jet (so I’m told). Simple, not overly complex, like jets of that era. Nice build.
+1@EngineerOtaku thanks, glad you like it! And I enjoyed that MiG, surely!
+1Nice flight model, 14% on final approach and about 160 KIAS leads to a perfect landing.
+1AKA Gloster Javelin...nice flight model, very appropriate, not overpowered, gives it very realistic acceleration and flight performance. Cannon effects are very cool, though it’s actually impossible to hit anything with them, I really like using those normally air to ground missiles in the air to air mode. Nice work!
+1Great build, your original should have gotten even more attention than it did.
+1@Mustang51 sure thing. I'll upload the concept with several different variations, shouldn't take too long, a day or two, at the most.
+1Thanks, Gentlemen!
+1Wow, that wing loading!
+1@BroAeronautics, I agree.
+1@BroAeronautics it is too bad, the F-20 was a logical advancement of the F-5 and developed with very little fuss within Northrop itself, not in response to a contract competition. As a result, NGA, to this day, approaches working with the government very differently than they did before the F-20, due to the drubbing they took as a result of not being able to sell any of these jets.
+1@Evenstsrike333 thank you!
+1Ok, approximately 18,000 deaths have been caused by the flu this season, as compared to 3,000 Coronovirus deaths. The risk factors making someone truly susceptible to dying from either are the same: compromised immune systems, underlying health problems (I.e., cancer), very elderly or very young. Also, the mortality rate has been readjusted down to .6% and the virus has mutated to a much less severe form. Sure, the uncertainty and lack of understanding concerning Covid-19 is a bit worrisome, but most health professionals are coming around to the fact that this is very much like the flu. So, are you worried about getting the flu and dying, even if you didn’t get this year’s flu vaccine? I’m not and you’re also probably ok. We have a “pandemic” caused by a mutation of the common cold and the world is in panic over it.
+1@LeonardoEngineering this one is more blue than the one you’re thinking of...the prototype’s “BMW blue” color. This one is going to be a “what if” build, so I’m building this one as a fully realized fighter in squadron service with either the USN’s VFC-12 “Fighting Omars”, VFC-13 “Saints” or the USAF’s 57th Wing...all aggressor units. The Omars has this very striking grey-blue paint with light blue markings, which is what you see on my build right now.
+1Nice Viper...she looks great! Flies great, too! ;)
+1This is just the thing the MoD would dream up to try and save a few million pounds. Then, 17 years into development, they’ll discover that removing an engine, the reheat and the advanced air-to-air radar is going to cost 25 million pounds more per jet than if they had just bought more Typhoons...then India will drop out of the planned buy and the per unit cost will go up another 127 million pounds. Then, when on the cusp of squadron service, the Labour Party, now in office, under the “leadership” of Jeremy Corbyn, back from political exile (for some reason no one can fathom), will ignominiously cancel the program, drag all 18 examples to the bone yard and chop the wings off while the BBC streams the event on the internet. Nice jet, BTW...
+1I don’t generally pay too much attention to boats and cars, but this one is too cool not to notice!
+1@ChisP where did you get 16-17 seconds for 180 degrees of turn? Certainly with bombs and tanks, it should turn much slower than when clean, but I assure you that a clean F-18 does not take 34 seconds to make a full turn at corner velocity. Heck, a standard rate turn, typically flown at about 30 degrees of bank (speed dependent) takes 120 seconds.
+1You’re right, there is no such thing as the perfect build. But this one is very good and flies realistically. The acceleration, roll rate, turning performance and overall speed and altitude performance are exactly what I would expect from a fighter of the 1950s. Also, the numbers match the RL numbers closely. The landing is tricky, which seems the most difficult thing to perfect and the braking performance is too good, but those are minor things as with a little practice, one can learn to land this well. I’m edified that you were inspired by my post and I’m sorry I didn’t see this one before...nice work!
+1@TheFantasticTyphoon well, with a BS in History from USAFA, I agree...the Japanese never fought in N Africa...however, the decision to switch to the yellow outlined insignia was based on the fear that the “red dot” would be mistaken for the Japanese insignia. The yellow outline insignia was meant to be used in all theaters on USAAF aircraft (standardization) ... however, as the strategy at that point of the war called for the major effort to be against Germany and Italy while “holding” the Japanese in the Pacific, the yellow outline is primarily associated with the North Africa campaign, though it was also used in the Pacific and on USN aircraft as well. To this day, that is the case ... Google “Operation Torch Insignia” and see what you get ... But, there are exceptions to every rule and that insignia was used only for a short while. That’s why, for the sake of brevity, I called it the “North Africa Insignia”, though, perhaps, I should have named it the “Yellow Outline Insignia”. But that doesn’t quite ring the same way as the “North Africa Insignia”, does it? You seem to have an interest in WWII history, which I still find immensely fascinating to this day...if you ever would like to discuss the subject, you’ll always find me a willing participant.
+1@ErickvCamilo actually, that would be really simple, especially the modern Brazilian insignia...what exactly are you looking for? The modern roundel by itself?
+1@Saviggriffin it’s located at the Arctic Island north of Yeager. Take off from Yeager, make a 180 degree turn and fly a heading of 355 degrees. You’ll get there before too long. Once in range, the Arctic Base will attempt to shoot you down.
+1Wish I could Spotlight ya, buddy, but you have many more points than I do!
+1Beautiful work!
+1As for this specific build, I flew it at 350 knots IAS, which I guess is about the speed a jet like this would fly a loop. I looped it in 2,500 ft...which is way more G than any jet could fly without the pilot passing out. For a loop at 350 knots, it should take around 5,000’-6,000’. So, yes, it turns better than it should, even accounting for the pilot pulling harder than he should in a loop.
+1No, not true...many trainers have an instantaneous turn rate as good as any fighter. The difference is in sustained turn rate and the speeds at which those turns are flown, especially when compared to straight wing fighters such as this one. A T-38 pulls 7.33 Gs and the F-16 pulls 9 Gs...the difference is that a lightweight F-16 can pull a 9 G turn while remaining level, while a T-38 will need to trade altitude or airspeed to maintain that 7.33 G turn as it has far less thrust than the Viper. Also, a straight winged trainer like your build can turn as well as most fighters, it flies that turn at a far lower airspeed than a fighter. However, a 4 G turn flown at 250 knots IAS is smaller than a 9 G turn flown at 600 knots IAS, so it’s a fallacy to say a trainer does not turn as well as a fighter, because, often, they do.
+1@LeonardoEngineering now I’m intrigued, what’s causing the autoroll?
+1@LeonardoEngineering hey, no worries! I’m hit or miss on the site as well.
+1Great build.
+1Nice!
+1