@AntiSocialTacoAlt I was planning to do the usual La-5FN. Initially I wanted to see if I could just convert this to an La-5, but I think I'd rather start from scratch.
Yeah ngl, the current situation makes me hesitant to post my LaGG-3 that I've nearly finished. I'm probably going ahead with it anyways because I've never tried to be overtly political in any of my builds other than sticking to raw history as much as I can.
@SCPCalebkid bruv I always take forever to build/upload things lol
.
@EchoVehicle No need to request because a Hellcat is already in my long...long...long list of ideas for WWII planes to make.
This would really be more like an F/A-18B or D model. The Super Hornet is a totally different airplane.
.
Speaking of which I should make one of those at some point...
Okay???
.
I mean I like this. I don't care if people modify my stuff; the rules allow that. It's the straight up stealing with no real modifications that isn't allowed.
.
So this is essentially a MiG-23 with Su-15 wings, no?
"This aircraft cannot land properly. When you tried to brake, it will stoppie very hard and break your front propeller."
.
It's a tail-dragger. Gotta learn to land like a tail-dragger; Tap the brakes, never just hold them down. Don't even touch the brakes until all three wheels can be on the ground without the plane lifting off again (as in wait until speed is low enough).
@IshiMoss I see. Thank you for the information!
.
Only thing that still puzzles me with the explanation is why use the conversion for some planes and not others? Also published speeds are usually TAS and not IAS, yeah? So are we technically converting that also?
@NemoNomPrime Best advice I can give based on all the test flying I did over the build process;
.
On takeoff try not to use more than 40-50% throttle and always hold back on the stick. Flaps help too.
.
On landing, aside from trying to make sure all three wheels contact, tap the brakes. Don't ever hold the brakes; no more than half a second or so. Definitely have enough speed coming in too, cuz hitting the ground too hard guarantees bouncing.
.
That all might be obvious, but it's the best I can add to that.
Well this blows mine out of the water by a mile - not like that's hard to do. Unfortunately I don't own VR so I can't try that, nor can my crappy laptop handle this many parts. More quality work from you
@ChiChiWerx Thanks for the critique. :) and yeah I wrecked myself many times while building and testing this plane, so I'm pretty certain I got an accurate late war pilot's experience of the Bf-109
@Sparky6004 iz ok
.
If ya want try to mess with it and improve the ground handling; for some reason this build slides left or right on the ground without any power at all and I cannot figure out why. I thought making the gear and rotators heavier would fix the problem but it didn't
@Sparky6004 Rudder control, my friend. After all the 109 is lore-infamous for being difficult to handle on the ground, especially as they got heavier and more powerful. I didn't bother to make it nicer to takeoff or land because I figured it'd be somewhat authentic to the real fighter.
.
Or just air start and don't bother with takeoff lol
@AndrewGarrison Those are basically my usual "pilot figure" I add to most of my build. I have a new build in the works that I'll work on making as VR-friendly as I can; as you point out most of the switches on the right panel don't do anything, but I added them for the realism and such. I'll also leave out the pilot figure for the upcoming one just to see how well I can make it work.
.
I don't know if the He-162 had an internal engine starter, so maybe having to use the VR menu wheel is unintended realism? I dunno I just didn't think of it lol
.
Honored to see you one of my builds though, man. Totally unexpected; I do plan to make my builds compatible with the new VR stuff when it rolls out from now on.
.
Actually, since you bring up tweaking, could I modify the build ingame, find the XML file for it on my computer, and then update this post's XML to the new build? Or is that not how it works?
@ReinMcDeer I mean I put out the HG II variant, so safe to say going all in on the whole Luftwaffe '46 thing is allowable :>
.
I think there was an Me 262 model planned which used pulse jets like the V1 buzz bomb. That would've been wild
The R-4 was suggested for the Me 262, but this thing would have required the pilot to take their focus off of flying the aircraft. Not exactly ideal, so two-seaters were prescribed as ideal for using the weapon (precursor to WSO role, you could argue.) Still most Luftwaffe '46 planes seem to have options for the R-4; the Ta 183 is probably the most famous one, plus the Heinkel Lerche.
@Kangy Coolest I could agree. Wackiest? No that would be the Triebflugel, Lerche, Bachem Natter, or any number of emergency fighters like the Heinkel P.1078, Messerschmitt P.1112, Lippisch's...anything, etc.
@F104Deathtrap No need to be so aggressive. Also I tend to use 'friend' these days as a general...descriptor, I guess is the word. No different from saying 'dude,' 'ma'am,' etc.
.
Again, don't need to seem so standoff-ish.
@WolfHunter9111 The E-model isn't a carrier version to begin with so...
.
Also, if it's going boom then you might wanna expend or jettison the weapons before you attempt a landing. That might help. Also for the slippery wheel thing ChiChiWerx tried something that seemed to work, so find their comment on this build and experiment for yourself until it's to your liking.
@Falkenwut Well the paintjob thing I already mentioned to you; it was a link in the description of the build to an alternate skin, as it were. I also left off markings and 'small details' since I was trying to make the most stripped-down simple build I could of that plane. As for tweaking...well, it flew well enough for my tastes so I was okay with it
.
Funny that you and I did the same loadout lol I almost thought this was based on mine for a sec until I looked closer
@Bryan5 I just don't care for it. Sorry
+1@BeastHunter I don't do tagging.
Yeah in reality this is just an excuse for me being way too proud of this throwaway screenshot because it looks kinda neat :>
HA PERFORMANCE COST IS L33T
.
B e e g f u n n i
@AntiSocialTacoAlt I was planning to do the usual La-5FN. Initially I wanted to see if I could just convert this to an La-5, but I think I'd rather start from scratch.
@BaconAircraft I guess lol
@BaconAircraft I've read the post. I was just putting my thoughts down is all.
.
All's good. Thank you for creating this forum post. :)
Yeah ngl, the current situation makes me hesitant to post my LaGG-3 that I've nearly finished. I'm probably going ahead with it anyways because I've never tried to be overtly political in any of my builds other than sticking to raw history as much as I can.
@SCPCalebkid bruv I always take forever to build/upload things lol
+1.
@EchoVehicle No need to request because a Hellcat is already in my long...long...long list of ideas for WWII planes to make.
Looks nice :)
+1This would really be more like an F/A-18B or D model. The Super Hornet is a totally different airplane.
+3.
Speaking of which I should make one of those at some point...
@YUKIKAZESAMANANODA Aww, it was fine. You could have left it uploaded
What's really dumb is that autocredit didn't work...again lol
+1Okay???
+1.
I mean I like this. I don't care if people modify my stuff; the rules allow that. It's the straight up stealing with no real modifications that isn't allowed.
.
So this is essentially a MiG-23 with Su-15 wings, no?
@AvalonIndustries :)
"This aircraft cannot land properly. When you tried to brake, it will stoppie very hard and break your front propeller."
+1.
It's a tail-dragger. Gotta learn to land like a tail-dragger; Tap the brakes, never just hold them down. Don't even touch the brakes until all three wheels can be on the ground without the plane lifting off again (as in wait until speed is low enough).
@IshiMoss I see. Thank you for the information!
+1.
Only thing that still puzzles me with the explanation is why use the conversion for some planes and not others? Also published speeds are usually TAS and not IAS, yeah? So are we technically converting that also?
@NemoNomPrime Best advice I can give based on all the test flying I did over the build process;
.
On takeoff try not to use more than 40-50% throttle and always hold back on the stick. Flaps help too.
.
On landing, aside from trying to make sure all three wheels contact, tap the brakes. Don't ever hold the brakes; no more than half a second or so. Definitely have enough speed coming in too, cuz hitting the ground too hard guarantees bouncing.
.
That all might be obvious, but it's the best I can add to that.
Well this blows mine out of the water by a mile - not like that's hard to do. Unfortunately I don't own VR so I can't try that, nor can my crappy laptop handle this many parts. More quality work from you
@SLSD thank you, churchill from oversimplified
+1@ChiChiWerx Thanks for the critique. :) and yeah I wrecked myself many times while building and testing this plane, so I'm pretty certain I got an accurate late war pilot's experience of the Bf-109
@Sparky6004 iz ok
.
If ya want try to mess with it and improve the ground handling; for some reason this build slides left or right on the ground without any power at all and I cannot figure out why. I thought making the gear and rotators heavier would fix the problem but it didn't
@Sparky6004 Rudder control, my friend. After all the 109 is lore-infamous for being difficult to handle on the ground, especially as they got heavier and more powerful. I didn't bother to make it nicer to takeoff or land because I figured it'd be somewhat authentic to the real fighter.
.
Or just air start and don't bother with takeoff lol
@AndrewGarrison Right on. Thank you!
@AndrewGarrison Those are basically my usual "pilot figure" I add to most of my build. I have a new build in the works that I'll work on making as VR-friendly as I can; as you point out most of the switches on the right panel don't do anything, but I added them for the realism and such. I'll also leave out the pilot figure for the upcoming one just to see how well I can make it work.
.
I don't know if the He-162 had an internal engine starter, so maybe having to use the VR menu wheel is unintended realism? I dunno I just didn't think of it lol
.
Honored to see you one of my builds though, man. Totally unexpected; I do plan to make my builds compatible with the new VR stuff when it rolls out from now on.
.
Actually, since you bring up tweaking, could I modify the build ingame, find the XML file for it on my computer, and then update this post's XML to the new build? Or is that not how it works?
@Mobileplayer1029 I...actually have no idea lol
@ReinMcDeer I mean I put out the HG II variant, so safe to say going all in on the whole Luftwaffe '46 thing is allowable :>
+1.
I think there was an Me 262 model planned which used pulse jets like the V1 buzz bomb. That would've been wild
The R-4 was suggested for the Me 262, but this thing would have required the pilot to take their focus off of flying the aircraft. Not exactly ideal, so two-seaters were prescribed as ideal for using the weapon (precursor to WSO role, you could argue.) Still most Luftwaffe '46 planes seem to have options for the R-4; the Ta 183 is probably the most famous one, plus the Heinkel Lerche.
+1@ChiChiWerx I see, okay then. Good to know that.
@YourLoocalKid417 It has cannon
@YourLoocalKid417 ...Because it didn't have any? Not sure what you mean by "brrrt guns."
@Kangy Coolest I could agree. Wackiest? No that would be the Triebflugel, Lerche, Bachem Natter, or any number of emergency fighters like the Heinkel P.1078, Messerschmitt P.1112, Lippisch's...anything, etc.
+1@BBCP117 cuz I can :)
+2@MrShenanigans In a way, yeah.
+1@WolfHunter9111 Iz fine, you can do yours. I'm just extremely lazy
+1@WolfHunter9111 Joke's on you I have a Mobius 1 F-4 sitting around on my computer already lol
+1@Inuyasha8215 Wait, they didn't? I thought it did wrap vertically but didn't wrap horizontally
+1.
I'll have to test myself and see how it works again
@F104Deathtrap No need to be so aggressive. Also I tend to use 'friend' these days as a general...descriptor, I guess is the word. No different from saying 'dude,' 'ma'am,' etc.
.
Again, don't need to seem so standoff-ish.
@F104Deathtrap Why not? Also you clearly updooted it, friend. Just pointing it out.
.
You tried any of the 1.11 features for builds yet @Inuyasha8215?
Me-262 meets P-51, and not in combat for once lol
+3Funny, that first image is what I used as a blueprint for my build of this lol
+1happy Final Countdown noises
+3nice
Strike Witches build eeeeyyyyyyyy
@WolfHunter9111 The E-model isn't a carrier version to begin with so...
.
Also, if it's going boom then you might wanna expend or jettison the weapons before you attempt a landing. That might help. Also for the slippery wheel thing ChiChiWerx tried something that seemed to work, so find their comment on this build and experiment for yourself until it's to your liking.
@3AMIndustries I always feel bad about long descriptions because it feels like I just bore people
+1@3AMIndustries ...Go check my build list lol
+1@Falkenwut I mean I have an FA.2, GR.1, and a GR.3 sitting on my steam awaiting uploading so...I feel ya lol
+1@JustNormalPerson I mean... lol
@Falkenwut Well the paintjob thing I already mentioned to you; it was a link in the description of the build to an alternate skin, as it were. I also left off markings and 'small details' since I was trying to make the most stripped-down simple build I could of that plane. As for tweaking...well, it flew well enough for my tastes so I was okay with it
.
Funny that you and I did the same loadout lol I almost thought this was based on mine for a sec until I looked closer