It’s interesting you would spend all this effort to make a decent F-105...they’re difficult, I should know, but then use it for the “naval attack challenge” as the Thud was, first, a USAF nuclear strike bomber, then the conventional bomber workhorse for the first half of the Vietnam War. Never attacked a naval target that I know of; however, I would expect that it would have made a formidable naval attack aircraft, if it had ever been used as such.
Interesting build of a little known Soviet type. I personally am always interested in ultra high altitude aircraft. I was very curious when I read in your description that it had set the altitude record in 1964, a few years after which both the U-2 (70,000’+) and the A-12 (SR-71 predecessor, 80,000’+) had flown and set records far in excess of 20,174 meters, which is only just over 66,000 ft. Heck, when I flew the U-2 myself, I exceeded 66,000’ on practically every single high altitude sortie. Anyway, nice build, sorry I cannot Spotlight it as you have far exceeded my own point total 👍!
@MrPorg137 @Flash0o0Green Looks like a B-17, kinda flies like a B-17, four engines, yup, just like a B-17...also like a B-24! Imagine that! The B-24 never, ever had 4 engines and there were never late war refits with 2 engines. The twin engine, twin tail, high wing U.S. bomber in WWII was the B-25, which is probably the plane you’re thinking of.
Love the Monte Carlo SS! What a ballsy car, a block with essentially the same body as the Grand National...”G body”, I think it was. One of my good friends in HS had one of these cars, ah, memories...
The vertical stab looks identical, especially that tab which sticks out a little. Measuring it for height, chord and thickness would clearly show it was identical and probably lifted. The horizontal stab does look different, but his does look like crap in comparison.
I have to agree, though, the double and triple down, then the absurd denunciation telling you that you never made a 747 for yourself would infuriate me as well.
But, that little nugget that it’s hard to win an argument against an ignorant person is true. It’s a scientific fact that people tend to double down even if they know they’re wrong, perhaps this guy changed the horizontal stab a bit, or even built a different one and is ignoring the horizontal stab...rationalizing that the cockpit was free to use. Now he’s defensive because he’s been caught.
Parts or whole sections is a bit of a grey zone...I’d personally not use whole sections, even manually copying them just seems wrong. However the SP “Rules” (which have been rewritten since the last time I read them) only state: “...Never upload a successor as an original design; give credit to the designer of its predecessor.”. Obviously, they added the successor system to help in this regard...but it only assuages the offended party, not because copying others’ creations is morally right. The rules do not discuss use of parts or sections or crediting other builders for anything but successors.
Ultimately, though, I agree with you; plagiarism can be a single sentence or single phrase buried in a whole book. Use of parts in SP is kinda the same idea. I’ve had entire planes of mine copied, but the mods are pretty good about spotting and removing them. I do tag mods if I recognize other posts which have been lifted, usually they’re entire builds and those are gone pretty quickly as well. To copy in whole or in part is at least uncool and, conceptually, “any duplication in whole or in part is considered plagiarism.”
Fun to fly, if a bit nose heavy. I really like the smoke effect on the engines, it’s great feedback for flying final approach to the runway. Very twitchy fully configured and close to the runway.
I’m impressed. The design is definitely 6th Gen...those jets, as this one, eliminate the vertical stab as a means of RCS reduction, so good design. Dynamics and flight model is great...it’s a little too fast for my taste, and the roll rate should be a little faster, but everything is close to being realistic...especially the turn rate. Interesting features here, like the realistic door actuation when firing missiles, I like that a lot. It could use more trim or trim separated from the flap controls. It’s very easy to land, which is great...no swerving on the runway and just set 18-20% thrust on final at 175 mph and land, nice! Overall, great fictional build, also, I noticed you changed the designator 😉
You discuss Gs and the effect on the human organism, but if you’re going to cover the entire subject, you need to discuss the “G strain” maneuver. Additionally, not only are pilots more susceptible to negative Gs, likewise aircraft are almost always built to pull more positive Gs than negative Gs, though it’s arguable that this is done because pilots simply endure positive G better than negative Gs.
@HarryBen47 could be a named aircraft, as they often did during the Second World War...for example, the B-17 named the “Memphis Belle”, or the B-25 named “Tondelayo” or the P-51 named “Shangri La”...that’s what I thought you were advertising.
Nice build and quite a pretty subject, you kept the part count low for those mobile users, though I’d encourage you to go all out on a more detailed version with full markings and a built up wing! Flight model isn’t bad, in fact no huge complaints there as nothing is unrealistic, most noticeable thing is that I’m sure the RL jet rolls much faster (short winged fighter type aircraft).
In the airline world, there are many size variations in airliners. Airlines want to fill as many seats as possible on every route because that’s the most efficient way to fly an airplane. I fly 737-700s, 800s, 900s, 9ERs, and, someday, the MAX. Each airplane is filled as much as possible depending on the historical load for that route and the cost per seat mile is kept as low as possible in order to keep fares low and maximize profit. So it makes sense that one version of a large airplane may actually be smaller than the large version of a smaller jet.
Hey, the problem is the screenshot...green plane on a green background. Does not make your build look impressive at all. You already have the screenshot mod, you need to take advantage of it.
Form wise it’s a great build...mold lines are correct, I absolutely love the polished aluminum of the old Pan Am livery. Can I volunteer to test fly your next build prior to release?
@CapnCrunk well, I’m certainly glad you like it for what it is. I’ve considered putting the bomb bay in, it could be done, though it would take making the Center section out of individual panels and adding to the part count. There’s this movement around here to keep the part count as low as possible, which tends to be impossible if you want to add things like details,lettering, hear doors, etc. or not dumb down the build too much. Anyway, I made the decision early on to delete the bay since it was generally the extra tank later on and there are no nukes in SP anyway, though it would be cool to replicate those doors in game. I spent a lot of time trying to get the flying qualities just right. The SP physics model is a bit simplistic, but not bad if you work around a few things such as the unrealistically high parasite drag model. Though the vast, vast majority of people around here have absolutely zero experience with RL aircraft there are a few of us who do and try and make builds that fly realistically, so they do exist here and there.
I really like it, accurate weights, realistic acceleration and top speed. It turns well, but not too well...but what am I doing wrong? I’m fighting the jet constantly as I have to hold constant back stick to keep the nose from falling.
The simplest answer is that you make a teaser just like you made this post. @BogdanX’s suggestions below are how you might stylistically craft a teaser so that you can better generate enthusiasm for your upcoming post. I created two teasers for a project of mine, the first is a very teasing teaser and the second shows more of the jet. In this way, you generate curiosity and buzz at first, then slake the desire to see more with the second. If it looks good, it will sell itself. Even more than teasers, though, is a good screenshot...these days, I believe it’s absolutely critical to use the screenshot mod in order to generate the most traffic to your post. BTW I really like your upcoming build, the proportions are very realistic. Be wary, though, of requiring mods for your post. So, while that sonic boom mod might look good in the screenshot, many, including myself, who download mostly to iOS (and shortly, to Android) won’t download and I typically won’t upvote a post I can’t fly.
A fair attempt at the F-104. This is one of the more difficult SP replicas, yet, so many attempt it. The RL jet had a blown wing system in order to bestow it with a little slower approach speed, though the real thing approached at well more than 200 mph. The blown flaps are impossible in SP—heck flaps don’t even work correctly in game, which makes it nigh impossible to accurately model the 104’s flying characteristics.
Interesting build, the F-8 was known as “The Last of the Gunfighters” and, in U.S. Navy service, pretty much exclusively an air to air fighter. So it’s interesting you’d put the rocket pods on it, though it does give it some air to ground capability in SP world.
Not too bad, especially considering your level, as well as the patience with which you took to complete this correctly. There are a couple of things I would never have done, namely unlimited fuel—which I hate, but it’s a learning process.
I’m following now because some of these creations are amazing...surprised I hadn’t been following until now. Just promise me a couple of things: First, you’re not going to do that noobster unlimited fuel thing and 2. You’re going to wring out the flight model through extensive testing. If you need a tester, let me know.
@WarHawk95 yeah, that’s what they called it in that 1950s movie about test flying, “Into the Unknown”, I think it was called. I should remaster this one using Designer Suite and revise the flight model, cause it actually doesn’t fly all that well, very prone to departing controlled flight.
Holy cow...nice Victor rendition, the prettiest of the V bombers, IMHO. On iOS, no less, with all the bizarre, very British shapes. Sure, I may agree with Bog’s comments below, but those issues don’t put me off of it at all, I really like it.
By the way, this is how it works on planes in RL—unless it’s a relaxed stability jet like the F-16 in which computers help keep the plane under control.
In the Designer view, click on the little tool that looks like a little scale. You’ll see several colored lines appear. The red vertical line is the Center of Mass (CoM) line. The blue line is the Center or Lift (CoL) line. Weight forward—either fuel or dead weight—on your build should move the CoM line forward...towards the back should move it back. Wing position will move the CoL line. Make sure your red CoM line is slightly ahead of your blue CoL line, probably .25 to .5 SP units to yield good stability while being able to turn and lift the nose. If your build won’t turn or you can’t lift the nose, move your CoM line back towards the CoL line until it can—or increase your elevator surface. If your build tumbles, move the CoM forward by adding weight (fuel or dead weight) forward.
Fairey building an export version that is then bought by the USN as their fleet defence (note how I used a “c”?)...this IS pure fantasy. A nice one nonetheless 😉
@BandicootNewSnipes here’s my F-4E from quite awhile ago...I didn’t have Designer Suite, but I think it turned out pretty well. Ignore the wings, but I used a couple of other techniques here and there you might appreciate. Feel free to use as necessary for your builds.
An aircraft can be made to be “stall resistant”, but a wing will always stall. Ways to make an aircraft stall resistant include a canard, in which the canard stalls first because it is placed on the airframe at a higher angle (AoA), or is a different airfoil than the main wing. Canard stalls first, before the main wing, nose comes down, airspeed increases and stall is avoided—notice that a mini stall with the canard still occurs, but the main wing remains below its critical AoA. Or a wing may have slats that deploy at low speeds and increase the wing’s camber (curve), making it able to maintain flight at a lower airspeed. Or a design may simply not have the elevator authority to hold the nose up far and long enough to cause exceedance of the critical AoA...however, the end result of this is very poor maneuverability (most aircraft are like SP in that the CoG is ahead of CoM for stability) and the fact that if you go slow enough, sinking/mushing in the ground, albeit at a nose up angle. Still bad. However, every single airfoil out there will stall if the relative wind (often, the path of flight) is at too great an angle to the mean chord line of the wing.
@TUNDERTEAM ok, no worries. Also the F-5 will make about 600 mph at 5,000’—full power without A/B and just over 760 mph (supersonic) with A/B. I only exceeded Mach once in the T-38 because we simply don’t fly around in burner, except takeoff and we certainly didn’t break the barrier over the U.S., at least not intentionally. The F-5E/F “Tiger II” version was significantly more powerful than the F-5A, F-5B and T-38, but it is significantly heavier and has a higher drag/better lifting wing. It’s faster, but not by too much. The T-38C, which is a rebuild of the T-38A has improved takeoff thrust, but is not supersonic capable due to the improved inlets for the low speed regime. Just deciding on a version of what you want to build will help nail down some of the characteristics you want out of your build. Also, nailing down some of the defining characteristics—such as long vs short wings, fuse shape, etc., will also help your build to at least remind your users of the jet you’re trying to emulate. Just my 2 cents.
Well, if you want a recommendation, all the versions of the F-5, like the T-38, which is essentially a two seat F-5, have fairly short wings. This one’s wings are fairly long, unless you plan on scaling them down.
@BenSkyWalker. You might try and use a resizable wheel as a gear, but I don’t know if there’s actually friction in game between a wheel and fuselage parts, so not sure that would work and I haven’t tried it myself yet as I’m not on my PC this morning. Also, which part is meant to be the diaphragm?
This thing is actually set up as an actual ASI...all that’s needed is a gear between the red pie wedge part and that red circle. Other schemes such as rotators which activate at different speeds, etc. kind of defeat the purpose of the build.
It’s interesting you would spend all this effort to make a decent F-105...they’re difficult, I should know, but then use it for the “naval attack challenge” as the Thud was, first, a USAF nuclear strike bomber, then the conventional bomber workhorse for the first half of the Vietnam War. Never attacked a naval target that I know of; however, I would expect that it would have made a formidable naval attack aircraft, if it had ever been used as such.
+1Nice fairings.
+1Interesting build of a little known Soviet type. I personally am always interested in ultra high altitude aircraft. I was very curious when I read in your description that it had set the altitude record in 1964, a few years after which both the U-2 (70,000’+) and the A-12 (SR-71 predecessor, 80,000’+) had flown and set records far in excess of 20,174 meters, which is only just over 66,000 ft. Heck, when I flew the U-2 myself, I exceeded 66,000’ on practically every single high altitude sortie. Anyway, nice build, sorry I cannot Spotlight it as you have far exceeded my own point total 👍!
+1It accelerates ridiculously and the nose is oversized, but it really looks like an Eagle.
+1@MrPorg137 @Flash0o0Green Looks like a B-17, kinda flies like a B-17, four engines, yup, just like a B-17...also like a B-24! Imagine that! The B-24 never, ever had 4 engines and there were never late war refits with 2 engines. The twin engine, twin tail, high wing U.S. bomber in WWII was the B-25, which is probably the plane you’re thinking of.
+1The reason why the plane pitches down is probably because the doors are on trim control, when you move the slider up (nose down), plane pitches down.
+1Love the Monte Carlo SS! What a ballsy car, a block with essentially the same body as the Grand National...”G body”, I think it was. One of my good friends in HS had one of these cars, ah, memories...
+1Phabulous, simply phabulous. This one is on my favorites list.
+1The vertical stab looks identical, especially that tab which sticks out a little. Measuring it for height, chord and thickness would clearly show it was identical and probably lifted. The horizontal stab does look different, but his does look like crap in comparison.
I have to agree, though, the double and triple down, then the absurd denunciation telling you that you never made a 747 for yourself would infuriate me as well.
But, that little nugget that it’s hard to win an argument against an ignorant person is true. It’s a scientific fact that people tend to double down even if they know they’re wrong, perhaps this guy changed the horizontal stab a bit, or even built a different one and is ignoring the horizontal stab...rationalizing that the cockpit was free to use. Now he’s defensive because he’s been caught.
Parts or whole sections is a bit of a grey zone...I’d personally not use whole sections, even manually copying them just seems wrong. However the SP “Rules” (which have been rewritten since the last time I read them) only state: “...Never upload a successor as an original design; give credit to the designer of its predecessor.”. Obviously, they added the successor system to help in this regard...but it only assuages the offended party, not because copying others’ creations is morally right. The rules do not discuss use of parts or sections or crediting other builders for anything but successors.
Ultimately, though, I agree with you; plagiarism can be a single sentence or single phrase buried in a whole book. Use of parts in SP is kinda the same idea. I’ve had entire planes of mine copied, but the mods are pretty good about spotting and removing them. I do tag mods if I recognize other posts which have been lifted, usually they’re entire builds and those are gone pretty quickly as well. To copy in whole or in part is at least uncool and, conceptually, “any duplication in whole or in part is considered plagiarism.”
+1Fun to fly, if a bit nose heavy. I really like the smoke effect on the engines, it’s great feedback for flying final approach to the runway. Very twitchy fully configured and close to the runway.
+1@EngineerOtaku I know, but read this little screed I wrote for a longer explanation...paragraph 3 about trim working in reverse.
+1Nice work on a notoriously difficult subject. Flies quite well, I must say.
+1How do you turn off the gyro???
+1Nice, relatively simple build of an under appreciated gem of an airplane.
+1I’m impressed. The design is definitely 6th Gen...those jets, as this one, eliminate the vertical stab as a means of RCS reduction, so good design. Dynamics and flight model is great...it’s a little too fast for my taste, and the roll rate should be a little faster, but everything is close to being realistic...especially the turn rate. Interesting features here, like the realistic door actuation when firing missiles, I like that a lot. It could use more trim or trim separated from the flap controls. It’s very easy to land, which is great...no swerving on the runway and just set 18-20% thrust on final at 175 mph and land, nice! Overall, great fictional build, also, I noticed you changed the designator 😉
+1You discuss Gs and the effect on the human organism, but if you’re going to cover the entire subject, you need to discuss the “G strain” maneuver. Additionally, not only are pilots more susceptible to negative Gs, likewise aircraft are almost always built to pull more positive Gs than negative Gs, though it’s arguable that this is done because pilots simply endure positive G better than negative Gs.
+1@HarryBen47 could be a named aircraft, as they often did during the Second World War...for example, the B-17 named the “Memphis Belle”, or the B-25 named “Tondelayo” or the P-51 named “Shangri La”...that’s what I thought you were advertising.
+1It’s loud, it’s brash, driving it feels like holding a tiger by the tail, it even looks completely unsafe and...I LOVE IT! Great build!
+1SimpleThud.
+1Nice build and quite a pretty subject, you kept the part count low for those mobile users, though I’d encourage you to go all out on a more detailed version with full markings and a built up wing! Flight model isn’t bad, in fact no huge complaints there as nothing is unrealistic, most noticeable thing is that I’m sure the RL jet rolls much faster (short winged fighter type aircraft).
+1In the airline world, there are many size variations in airliners. Airlines want to fill as many seats as possible on every route because that’s the most efficient way to fly an airplane. I fly 737-700s, 800s, 900s, 9ERs, and, someday, the MAX. Each airplane is filled as much as possible depending on the historical load for that route and the cost per seat mile is kept as low as possible in order to keep fares low and maximize profit. So it makes sense that one version of a large airplane may actually be smaller than the large version of a smaller jet.
+1Hey, the problem is the screenshot...green plane on a green background. Does not make your build look impressive at all. You already have the screenshot mod, you need to take advantage of it.
+1Form wise it’s a great build...mold lines are correct, I absolutely love the polished aluminum of the old Pan Am livery. Can I volunteer to test fly your next build prior to release?
+1@CapnCrunk well, I’m certainly glad you like it for what it is. I’ve considered putting the bomb bay in, it could be done, though it would take making the Center section out of individual panels and adding to the part count. There’s this movement around here to keep the part count as low as possible, which tends to be impossible if you want to add things like details,lettering, hear doors, etc. or not dumb down the build too much. Anyway, I made the decision early on to delete the bay since it was generally the extra tank later on and there are no nukes in SP anyway, though it would be cool to replicate those doors in game. I spent a lot of time trying to get the flying qualities just right. The SP physics model is a bit simplistic, but not bad if you work around a few things such as the unrealistically high parasite drag model. Though the vast, vast majority of people around here have absolutely zero experience with RL aircraft there are a few of us who do and try and make builds that fly realistically, so they do exist here and there.
+1I really like it, accurate weights, realistic acceleration and top speed. It turns well, but not too well...but what am I doing wrong? I’m fighting the jet constantly as I have to hold constant back stick to keep the nose from falling.
+1The simplest answer is that you make a teaser just like you made this post. @BogdanX’s suggestions below are how you might stylistically craft a teaser so that you can better generate enthusiasm for your upcoming post. I created two teasers for a project of mine, the first is a very teasing teaser and the second shows more of the jet. In this way, you generate curiosity and buzz at first, then slake the desire to see more with the second. If it looks good, it will sell itself. Even more than teasers, though, is a good screenshot...these days, I believe it’s absolutely critical to use the screenshot mod in order to generate the most traffic to your post. BTW I really like your upcoming build, the proportions are very realistic. Be wary, though, of requiring mods for your post. So, while that sonic boom mod might look good in the screenshot, many, including myself, who download mostly to iOS (and shortly, to Android) won’t download and I typically won’t upvote a post I can’t fly.
+1A fair attempt at the F-104. This is one of the more difficult SP replicas, yet, so many attempt it. The RL jet had a blown wing system in order to bestow it with a little slower approach speed, though the real thing approached at well more than 200 mph. The blown flaps are impossible in SP—heck flaps don’t even work correctly in game, which makes it nigh impossible to accurately model the 104’s flying characteristics.
+1Interesting build, the F-8 was known as “The Last of the Gunfighters” and, in U.S. Navy service, pretty much exclusively an air to air fighter. So it’s interesting you’d put the rocket pods on it, though it does give it some air to ground capability in SP world.
+1Pretty build.
+1Not too bad, especially considering your level, as well as the patience with which you took to complete this correctly. There are a couple of things I would never have done, namely unlimited fuel—which I hate, but it’s a learning process.
+1I’m following now because some of these creations are amazing...surprised I hadn’t been following until now. Just promise me a couple of things: First, you’re not going to do that noobster unlimited fuel thing and 2. You’re going to wring out the flight model through extensive testing. If you need a tester, let me know.
+1@WarHawk95 yeah, that’s what they called it in that 1950s movie about test flying, “Into the Unknown”, I think it was called. I should remaster this one using Designer Suite and revise the flight model, cause it actually doesn’t fly all that well, very prone to departing controlled flight.
+1Holy cow...nice Victor rendition, the prettiest of the V bombers, IMHO. On iOS, no less, with all the bizarre, very British shapes. Sure, I may agree with Bog’s comments below, but those issues don’t put me off of it at all, I really like it.
+1Nice Tojo.
+1By the way, this is how it works on planes in RL—unless it’s a relaxed stability jet like the F-16 in which computers help keep the plane under control.
+1In the Designer view, click on the little tool that looks like a little scale. You’ll see several colored lines appear. The red vertical line is the Center of Mass (CoM) line. The blue line is the Center or Lift (CoL) line. Weight forward—either fuel or dead weight—on your build should move the CoM line forward...towards the back should move it back. Wing position will move the CoL line. Make sure your red CoM line is slightly ahead of your blue CoL line, probably .25 to .5 SP units to yield good stability while being able to turn and lift the nose. If your build won’t turn or you can’t lift the nose, move your CoM line back towards the CoL line until it can—or increase your elevator surface. If your build tumbles, move the CoM forward by adding weight (fuel or dead weight) forward.
+1Fairey building an export version that is then bought by the USN as their fleet defence (note how I used a “c”?)...this IS pure fantasy. A nice one nonetheless 😉
+1@BandicootNewSnipes here’s my F-4E from quite awhile ago...I didn’t have Designer Suite, but I think it turned out pretty well. Ignore the wings, but I used a couple of other techniques here and there you might appreciate. Feel free to use as necessary for your builds.
+1An aircraft can be made to be “stall resistant”, but a wing will always stall. Ways to make an aircraft stall resistant include a canard, in which the canard stalls first because it is placed on the airframe at a higher angle (AoA), or is a different airfoil than the main wing. Canard stalls first, before the main wing, nose comes down, airspeed increases and stall is avoided—notice that a mini stall with the canard still occurs, but the main wing remains below its critical AoA. Or a wing may have slats that deploy at low speeds and increase the wing’s camber (curve), making it able to maintain flight at a lower airspeed. Or a design may simply not have the elevator authority to hold the nose up far and long enough to cause exceedance of the critical AoA...however, the end result of this is very poor maneuverability (most aircraft are like SP in that the CoG is ahead of CoM for stability) and the fact that if you go slow enough, sinking/mushing in the ground, albeit at a nose up angle. Still bad. However, every single airfoil out there will stall if the relative wind (often, the path of flight) is at too great an angle to the mean chord line of the wing.
+1@TUNDERTEAM ok, no worries. Also the F-5 will make about 600 mph at 5,000’—full power without A/B and just over 760 mph (supersonic) with A/B. I only exceeded Mach once in the T-38 because we simply don’t fly around in burner, except takeoff and we certainly didn’t break the barrier over the U.S., at least not intentionally. The F-5E/F “Tiger II” version was significantly more powerful than the F-5A, F-5B and T-38, but it is significantly heavier and has a higher drag/better lifting wing. It’s faster, but not by too much. The T-38C, which is a rebuild of the T-38A has improved takeoff thrust, but is not supersonic capable due to the improved inlets for the low speed regime. Just deciding on a version of what you want to build will help nail down some of the characteristics you want out of your build. Also, nailing down some of the defining characteristics—such as long vs short wings, fuse shape, etc., will also help your build to at least remind your users of the jet you’re trying to emulate. Just my 2 cents.
+1Well, if you want a recommendation, all the versions of the F-5, like the T-38, which is essentially a two seat F-5, have fairly short wings. This one’s wings are fairly long, unless you plan on scaling them down.
+1@BenSkyWalker. You might try and use a resizable wheel as a gear, but I don’t know if there’s actually friction in game between a wheel and fuselage parts, so not sure that would work and I haven’t tried it myself yet as I’m not on my PC this morning. Also, which part is meant to be the diaphragm?
+1This thing is actually set up as an actual ASI...all that’s needed is a gear between the red pie wedge part and that red circle. Other schemes such as rotators which activate at different speeds, etc. kind of defeat the purpose of the build.
+1Very detailed and original, I like it. Very cute, I’m impressed with the detail under the cover as well as the way you managed the headlight.
+1@Zott well, sinking the Tiny with gunfire alone is a bit much, but you need to be able to at least destroy the convoy by strafing, so they work!
+1I was just playing with this plane, very nice. I like the accuracy of the build.
+1@Hyattorama thank you very much, I appreciate the in depth assessment. Not many take the time to do so.
+1Beautiful jet.
+1Very nice, low and slow!
+1Nice...and only 100 parts, impressive, very impressive.
+1