Go to the info tab and look around, there should be a button for displaying them. I have two questions: does it fly properly at 300mph? If you are flying straight and level at full throttle and let go of the controls, what does the plane do?
@Pnicks15 No, no. It handles fine. I mean in real life the plane was dangerous and unsuitable for combat! But what you've done here is really quite good and I really like it.
You've done an excellent job here. In fact, I am convinced that your replica is actually much more than this plane deserves. In real life it was rubbish. Congratulations.
@KnightOfRen There's really nothing to be said about MiG that had t been said, they've been a top-notch manufacturer since the end of WWII. It would be absolutely silly to try and sum up all the different planes they've built, each one certainly needs to be considered separately and in the context of when it was built. I will say this, however, you don't see anybody else building planes that stay in service longer.
Your question is the tip of a whole iceberg of information. Do you want a quick, easy answer that kind of works or do you want to dig into the real answer that will involve quite a bit of learning?
@AndrewHarrison The plane went into a vertical spin and couldn't be recovered so he ejected. The thing is, early model 104's ejected the pilot downward through the floor and the ejector rocket caught his head on fire. He was ok, but it was a hell of a mess.
As far as American WW2 attack aircraft go, you've got 2 choices: the hardnose cannon armed B-25H or the or the hardnose A-26B with 8 .50 caliber M2 machineguns in the nose.
I highly recommend the A-26B, it was such an effective ground attack platform that the USAF used them in Korea and even Vietnam. It had a decent sized bomb bay, and it could carry dozens of rockets on the wings. The cannon on the B-25H was cool, but not as effective as you might imagine.
@Aldriech Reliability is key, for sure. Military history is littered with the wrecks of planes that ignored reliability in search of performance. The F-104 is a perfect example, pure trash when it was called upon.
I'll start off with what I like about this plane. First, the detail: this plane has great detail, all the panel hatches, plate seams, and other little bits really make it look more believable. The custom exhaust nozzles and afterburner look awesome. You clearly designed it to fit a certain kind of role and it fits well. I like the overall proportions of the wings, find and fuselage, everything looks to be the right size and the right place there. You made 3D wings, which immediately sets this plane apart from most builds on here. Overall this is a good job!
What can you improve? Wings. Modern jets don't have elliptical wings, use straight or bent leading and trailing edges. Landing gear. Tricycle landing gear works differently than what most people think. You dont have wheels in the front and wheels in the back like a ground vehicle. Instead, you have main wheels that carry the weight of the plane, and nose wheels that are basically just there to keep the nose up (and maybe steer). The main wheels go just a tiny bit behind the center of mass (red ball), this allows the plane to do a wheelie on takeoff (called "rotation") that greatly increases lift, the only plane I know of that does not do this is the B-52. So put the main wheels just a tiny bit behind and under the red ball, and keep the red ball between the main wings. Also, learn how to make custom landing gear.
@QuitePossiblyMangled The Zero is a great example of a plane with stellar performance becoming a gigantic liability. Sacrificing safety features for performance was a worthwhile trade so long as the edge in performance kept the pilot safe. But once that lead evaporated, so did Japan's supply of capable pilots, leading to a vicious cycle of failure that doomed the IJN.
@AndrewHarrison The top picture is from the movie The Right Stuff it depicts Chuck Yeager walking away from a crashed F-104 Starfighter during one of his altitude record attempts. The photo isn't real, but the stuff in the photo really happened.
I used to want a Soviet BTR-80 armored troop carrier as my apocalypse home/vehicle, but then I read an article that pointed out how military vehicles require special heavy equipment in order to keep them running. So now I think a Hilux based fighting vehicle would probably be ideal. The professional term for these kind of homemade monsters is "technical" and theres a two whole subreddits devoted to them if you're looking for ideas. ONE and TWO Warning, reddit is not as kid-friendly as our forums.
Probably both. Different standards, variants, etc. often have extra armor applied, sometimes the entire turret is redesigned in later models. In the case of the Leopard, it's probably extra armor attached to the exterior of the original turret.
@Numbers Its worse than clickbait in my opinion because it's divisive. And for what? Some dude got more imaginary points than somebody else? Boo hoo
+4Looking real good
Wouldn't it be great if we tried to get attention by creating great builds instead of posting this trash?
+21Ok, bye
Go to the info tab and look around, there should be a button for displaying them. I have two questions: does it fly properly at 300mph? If you are flying straight and level at full throttle and let go of the controls, what does the plane do?
@Starbound
Let me know if you ever meet one.
+2@UltraLight If you properly disable drag and use structural wings, I do not think that will happen
You SNEAKY little...
@UltraLight I do not think I've run into that particular issue
@QuitePossiblyMangled And thus, you will work harder.
+1@Pnicks15 No, no. It handles fine. I mean in real life the plane was dangerous and unsuitable for combat! But what you've done here is really quite good and I really like it.
+1You've done an excellent job here. In fact, I am convinced that your replica is actually much more than this plane deserves. In real life it was rubbish. Congratulations.
@PointlessWhyshouldi I can't think of anything funny with which to respond. However, that does sound like a good system.
+1@RamboJutter I like that. You can keep track of how much time it takes to build something. Clever
This place is a kindergarten.
+1@UltraLight kill it?
@KnightOfRen There's really nothing to be said about MiG that had t been said, they've been a top-notch manufacturer since the end of WWII. It would be absolutely silly to try and sum up all the different planes they've built, each one certainly needs to be considered separately and in the context of when it was built. I will say this, however, you don't see anybody else building planes that stay in service longer.
@UltraLight Heed the words of PointlessWhyShouldI or be forever tormented by the twin curses of excessive drag and mediocre performance!
+1You need to make the tail bigger and the elevators much bigger
Your question is the tip of a whole iceberg of information. Do you want a quick, easy answer that kind of works or do you want to dig into the real answer that will involve quite a bit of learning?
@KnightOfRen Exactly
@KnightOfRen Not just range, but loiter time as well. It's a much better aircraft for supporting troops, assuming the air is clear.
Amazing retro vibes
UNDA DA SEA!
+6@AndrewHarrison The plane went into a vertical spin and couldn't be recovered so he ejected. The thing is, early model 104's ejected the pilot downward through the floor and the ejector rocket caught his head on fire. He was ok, but it was a hell of a mess.
+1As far as American WW2 attack aircraft go, you've got 2 choices: the hardnose cannon armed B-25H or the or the hardnose A-26B with 8 .50 caliber M2 machineguns in the nose.
I highly recommend the A-26B, it was such an effective ground attack platform that the USAF used them in Korea and even Vietnam. It had a decent sized bomb bay, and it could carry dozens of rockets on the wings. The cannon on the B-25H was cool, but not as effective as you might imagine.
@OldBomber I know, I just thought it was funny. I wish I could help but I have no idea how to protect from explosions.
@DwiAngkasaAeronautics No problem, it's respectable that you want to improve and you've clearly got talent
@BagelPlane Sure does, though sometimes aircraft can be repurposed surprisingly well.
@Aldriech Reliability is key, for sure. Military history is littered with the wrecks of planes that ignored reliability in search of performance. The F-104 is a perfect example, pure trash when it was called upon.
+2I'll start off with what I like about this plane. First, the detail: this plane has great detail, all the panel hatches, plate seams, and other little bits really make it look more believable. The custom exhaust nozzles and afterburner look awesome. You clearly designed it to fit a certain kind of role and it fits well. I like the overall proportions of the wings, find and fuselage, everything looks to be the right size and the right place there. You made 3D wings, which immediately sets this plane apart from most builds on here. Overall this is a good job!
What can you improve? Wings. Modern jets don't have elliptical wings, use straight or bent leading and trailing edges. Landing gear. Tricycle landing gear works differently than what most people think. You dont have wheels in the front and wheels in the back like a ground vehicle. Instead, you have main wheels that carry the weight of the plane, and nose wheels that are basically just there to keep the nose up (and maybe steer). The main wheels go just a tiny bit behind the center of mass (red ball), this allows the plane to do a wheelie on takeoff (called "rotation") that greatly increases lift, the only plane I know of that does not do this is the B-52. So put the main wheels just a tiny bit behind and under the red ball, and keep the red ball between the main wings. Also, learn how to make custom landing gear.
+1"Amor" means "love"
@QuitePossiblyMangled The Zero is a great example of a plane with stellar performance becoming a gigantic liability. Sacrificing safety features for performance was a worthwhile trade so long as the edge in performance kept the pilot safe. But once that lead evaporated, so did Japan's supply of capable pilots, leading to a vicious cycle of failure that doomed the IJN.
@Aldriech For general aviation, yes. For combat? No.
+1@PapaKernels I am not ready to relinquish control over to Skynet just yet.
@rexrexThezion At my speed? Probably 3 more months, lol.
@PointlessWhyshouldi The Juggernaut is my favorite.
@PapaKernels F6F was the king of carrier planes in my opinion, 305 aces in just under 2 years. I'm building one right now.
+1@AndrewHarrison The top picture is from the movie The Right Stuff it depicts Chuck Yeager walking away from a crashed F-104 Starfighter during one of his altitude record attempts. The photo isn't real, but the stuff in the photo really happened.
@ZHUAREVONI hahaha I look forward to seeing some of these up here.
I used to want a Soviet BTR-80 armored troop carrier as my apocalypse home/vehicle, but then I read an article that pointed out how military vehicles require special heavy equipment in order to keep them running. So now I think a Hilux based fighting vehicle would probably be ideal. The professional term for these kind of homemade monsters is "technical" and theres a two whole subreddits devoted to them if you're looking for ideas. ONE and TWO Warning, reddit is not as kid-friendly as our forums.
+1I've got a Samsung Odyssey. The only games I use it for are Elite: Dangerous and DCS: MIG-21 bis
Probably both. Different standards, variants, etc. often have extra armor applied, sometimes the entire turret is redesigned in later models. In the case of the Leopard, it's probably extra armor attached to the exterior of the original turret.
@KnightOfRen To know her is to love her
+1Air to air unguided rockets were a thing in the late 40's. It wasn't pretty.
+3At last, at last!
+1@AlmostMobileFriendly
Oh yes!
@KnightOfRen Love finds a way
@Nerfaddict Nice.