I see spotlights as something for new guys who need the boost while they get better. Great Old Ones like you and Raptor and Boggy, people know you, know your quality and style and reputation. You've made a name for yourself and I think you should wear that name with pride.
In real life, helicopters are really freaky. For instance, (unless it has twin, counter-rotating main rotors) the faster forward a helicopter goes, the more it pulls to one side. This gets so bad that its top speed isnt limited by the power of its engines but by how hard you can pull in the opposite direction to keep it going straight.
To properly control a helicopter you need a joystick, rudder pedals, a throttle and a "collective" lever. So if you're just using WASD or thumb sticks, you're going to need to take some time studying the controls.
@Kakhikotchauri1
NARRATOR: "They said it couldn't be done."
FEMALE VOICE: "No, Khaki. Don't whine about mobile mods on the forums, you know what happens to people when they..."
MALE VOICE: "I've got to take a stand for SPEECH FREEDOM!"
NARRATOR: "It all started with just one man, crying about mods on his phone. But his spark lit the flame of a movement that burns to this very day. This winter, hear the unforgettable tale of the legendary keyboard warrior Kakhikoychauri1"
A few things to consider: FIRST, as others have pointed out, B-29 wasn't designed to carry atomic bombs so they had to be retrofitted in order to carry such large weapons. Atomic B-29's were called Silverplate B-29's. Look them up to learn more.
SECOND, during WWII America could only make enough weaponized uranium/plutonium to build 3 or 4 atomic bombs per year and the cost was staggering.
THREE, the Little-Boy bomb was very simple to design and build, but it used a gigantic amount of uranium, much more than the US could sustainably produce. So the scientists developed a more efficient implosion bomb, the Fat-Man. The Fat-Man only needed 1/10 as much nuclear material to work, but it was extremely complicated and very difficult to design and build. In the end, Fat-Man ended up in mass production and only a few LittleBoy bombs were ever built. Also, when the Soviet Union stole the designs and built their own atom bombs, they were the Fat-Man type.
Disable suspension on the wheels.
Multiply the mass of any rotators and anything directly connected to the rotators by 3.
I like to lower the traction on the wheels, too.
"Real wings" are the wing parts, the flat, crappy looking pieces that are labelled "wing" in the menu. They're the only way to get your airplane to fly properly, but they look awful, so we build good looking "fake" wings out of fuselage parts and then we hide the "real" wings inside.
Yes, the visible moving parts are done with rotators.
The "real" wings are hidden inside the fuselage blocks of the visible wing. Remember to disable aircraft collision for the moving or hidden parts so nothing explodes.
The skills to build something that works effectively and looks good can only come from experience. You get experience by tearing apart things other people have built and by building things yourself.
To find the inspiration to build new things, you have to look around. People don't just pull ideas out of thin air, they smash together what they know into something unknown. Science fiction artists usually look at images of the past to create new art. A 1930s airplane could become a starship, a suit of medieval armor could become a tank. 3D modelers often use concept art paintings to create things for movies, television and games. Here is a website specializing in such artwork
Finally, some advice: try to imagine the purpose of your creation before you start building. What kinds of things does it need to do and how does it accomplish those things. Dont just say "it flies," give it wings and engines that look like they could really fly. Think about the machinery inside of it. Where do the people sit? Where are the fuel tanks? Does the landing gear have room to fold up inside? If I see one more jet with landing gear that folds into the engine compartment I swear to god I will scream! Anyway, good luck.
@SimplyPlain Yes and no. A good pilot will almost always determine the outcome, but tactics, doctrine and equipment played a heavier role than usual over Vietnam. NVAF pilots depended on Ground Intercept Controllers to plot effective routes to ambush incoming bombers (much like the RAF over England during the Blitz), these radar personnel were instrumental to their success. On the other hand, US pilots suffered heavily as a result of being issued long-range weapon systems but given standing orders demanding close-range encounters, poor, often repetitive attack planning and inconsistent goals. An interesting divide between pragmatism and politics that cost many lives. The United States allowed hubris to minimize a considerable technological advantage, whereas by sticking close to their intended purpose, the NVAF was able to maximize the impact of their fewer and less sophisticated fighters.
You don't use yaw to turn an airplane in flight. It's used for more subtle purposes that are difficult to explain briefly, like keeping the plane flying straight in a crosswind or reducing the amount of roll in a slow turn.
@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.
No. Wing loading is the size of the wing compared to the weight of the plane. Bigger wings and lighter planes can turn tighter than heavier planes with smaller wings.
There are many other factors that determine maneuverability: speed, the amount of thrust, center of thrust, thrust vectoring (actually rotating the engine exhaust), center of lift, center of mass, the size and maximum deflection of control surfaces, the location and number of control surfaces and what kind of controls they are, and many more.
Post images in your teaser so people will be excited. Any URL ending with .jpg .gif or .png will work, but never use IMGUR. This is how:
It's surprising to me why a plane like this hasn't been made earlier. I guess there's the Aircam and the Double Endwr project, but there isn't really anything that takes advantage of the prop wash, or is at this scale or functionality.
Just playing devil's advocate here, I think your plane is gorgeous and well planned.
I think the main reason someone would avoid a high-mounted wing + twin wing mounted engines on such a small plane would be efficiency. The high thrust line leads to a considerable amount of pitch-down torque, which has to be countered by the tail, leading to drag. Coupled with the additional fuel consumption of a second engine, this could be one thirsty beast. To a small-time operator, the added costs in fuel and maintenance could be a turn-off and thus, not such a common design.
Now, all of this is completely aside from the fact that this is a much more rugged and reliable design than your standard Cub-clone. While the possibility of a noobie-pilot gunning the throttle at the wrong moment could be worrisome for that high thrust line, this can be easily overcome with proper wing design and other safety features. Overall, sacrificing a bit of fuel for an exponentially safer (and heavier-lifting) plane seems like a good trade to me.
@K2K The US also used a rocket called the M8, which launched from tubes instead of individual racks like the HVAR. Aircraft would carry the tubes lashed together in a triple-launcher called the M-10. It wasn't as powerful as the HVAR, but it was certainly quite destructive and still much easier to use than regular bombs.
But seriously, if you guys devoted half the energy towards learning how to make things, instead of arguing about upvotes, we'd all be platinum many times over.
To me, a good plane looks great and flies great. If I can't land it, if it loses control in a turn, if it's unnaturally fast or slow, then it doesn't fly well.
Good looking planes have 3D wings, realistic custom landing gear that works properly. Custom cockpits are nice, but not necessary. Markings, decals and lettering are nice, but not necessary. It has to be visually believable. The parts have to make sense.
This is an all-time low for challenges. Low-effort builders farming upvotes with low-effort challenges. Many of the long time greats are starting to refuse to participate in them because it's become such a joke.
I noticed your Bush challenge uses a screen grab of somebody's bush plane, but the upload itself is just a single block. Didn't mention who built the plane, didn't list it as a successor. Total violation of the rules.
And here you are, complaining about a lack of upvotes? Well, make better stuff because this ain't it, chief.
It's interesting how the Badger went from being overshadowed by every other Tupolev bomber as the Tu-16, to the most politically important bomber of 2020 as the H-6.
They're gonna change it...
To MyMassage
+3I see spotlights as something for new guys who need the boost while they get better. Great Old Ones like you and Raptor and Boggy, people know you, know your quality and style and reputation. You've made a name for yourself and I think you should wear that name with pride.
+3This guy knows what's up.
+3@Stellarlabs Latvian man hear knock at door. "Is potato man, open door."
Man is happy, open door. Is no potato man, is secret police.
+3CELEBRATION
+2In real life, helicopters are really freaky. For instance, (unless it has twin, counter-rotating main rotors) the faster forward a helicopter goes, the more it pulls to one side. This gets so bad that its top speed isnt limited by the power of its engines but by how hard you can pull in the opposite direction to keep it going straight.
To properly control a helicopter you need a joystick, rudder pedals, a throttle and a "collective" lever. So if you're just using WASD or thumb sticks, you're going to need to take some time studying the controls.
+2When are they going to wise up and hire you?
+2Dude, this thing is awesome!
+2Put the important stuff like drop tanks, tail hook on AG1 and 2, and put the silly stuff like lights on AG4, 5, 6 etc.
Having AG's for the guns is only necessary if you have turrets etc.
+2@Kakhikotchauri1
NARRATOR: "They said it couldn't be done."
FEMALE VOICE: "No, Khaki. Don't whine about mobile mods on the forums, you know what happens to people when they..."
MALE VOICE: "I've got to take a stand for SPEECH FREEDOM!"
NARRATOR: "It all started with just one man, crying about mods on his phone. But his spark lit the flame of a movement that burns to this very day. This winter, hear the unforgettable tale of the legendary keyboard warrior Kakhikoychauri1"
+2A) Run a quick google search to find out
B) Write a childish forum post whining about not getting what you want and bad mouthing everyone involved in the game
You chose B, good job!
+2Deep voice narrator:
+2This fall, get ready to get... Blowed Up.
Keep in mind this is only for users who have posted on the website. The vast majority of players have never posted anything.
+2Download good planes and take them apart to see how they work
+2I try to divide by 5 with my guns because SP makes every bullet a tracer, and in real life that's usually every 5th
+2What the hell, bro?
+2A few things to consider: FIRST, as others have pointed out, B-29 wasn't designed to carry atomic bombs so they had to be retrofitted in order to carry such large weapons. Atomic B-29's were called Silverplate B-29's. Look them up to learn more.
+2SECOND, during WWII America could only make enough weaponized uranium/plutonium to build 3 or 4 atomic bombs per year and the cost was staggering.
THREE, the Little-Boy bomb was very simple to design and build, but it used a gigantic amount of uranium, much more than the US could sustainably produce. So the scientists developed a more efficient implosion bomb, the Fat-Man. The Fat-Man only needed 1/10 as much nuclear material to work, but it was extremely complicated and very difficult to design and build. In the end, Fat-Man ended up in mass production and only a few LittleBoy bombs were ever built. Also, when the Soviet Union stole the designs and built their own atom bombs, they were the Fat-Man type.
Disable suspension on the wheels.
+2Multiply the mass of any rotators and anything directly connected to the rotators by 3.
I like to lower the traction on the wheels, too.
Whoooooooa
I am absolutely blown away
+2We must support more weird things getting to the front page. Especially this!
+2PLAY THE TUTORIAL
I assume there still is one.
+2I cant get over how great this thing looks. It's so cool to see such an under appreciated plane recreated so well
+2"Real wings" are the wing parts, the flat, crappy looking pieces that are labelled "wing" in the menu. They're the only way to get your airplane to fly properly, but they look awful, so we build good looking "fake" wings out of fuselage parts and then we hide the "real" wings inside.
+2Yes, the visible moving parts are done with rotators.
The "real" wings are hidden inside the fuselage blocks of the visible wing. Remember to disable aircraft collision for the moving or hidden parts so nothing explodes.
+2Hell of a bike
Hell of a build!
+2@Tully2 Sometimes you have to tone down the cri cri a little bit so that you can pump up the volume and finish strong with some cri cri
+2You're an artist for building this, but a maniac for wanting to. Great job!
+2" So this is just a clear message that the Devs will no longer work or try to improve the game."
LMAO
+2Thanks for posting this, I needed a giggle.
Welcome to hell
+2The first rule of SimplePlanesClub is we do not talk about the undo button.
The second rule of SimplePlanesClub is we do not talk about the undo button!
+2The skills to build something that works effectively and looks good can only come from experience. You get experience by tearing apart things other people have built and by building things yourself.
To find the inspiration to build new things, you have to look around. People don't just pull ideas out of thin air, they smash together what they know into something unknown. Science fiction artists usually look at images of the past to create new art. A 1930s airplane could become a starship, a suit of medieval armor could become a tank. 3D modelers often use concept art paintings to create things for movies, television and games. Here is a website specializing in such artwork
Finally, some advice: try to imagine the purpose of your creation before you start building. What kinds of things does it need to do and how does it accomplish those things. Dont just say "it flies," give it wings and engines that look like they could really fly. Think about the machinery inside of it. Where do the people sit? Where are the fuel tanks? Does the landing gear have room to fold up inside? If I see one more jet with landing gear that folds into the engine compartment I swear to god I will scream! Anyway, good luck.
+2@SimplyPlain Yes and no. A good pilot will almost always determine the outcome, but tactics, doctrine and equipment played a heavier role than usual over Vietnam. NVAF pilots depended on Ground Intercept Controllers to plot effective routes to ambush incoming bombers (much like the RAF over England during the Blitz), these radar personnel were instrumental to their success. On the other hand, US pilots suffered heavily as a result of being issued long-range weapon systems but given standing orders demanding close-range encounters, poor, often repetitive attack planning and inconsistent goals. An interesting divide between pragmatism and politics that cost many lives. The United States allowed hubris to minimize a considerable technological advantage, whereas by sticking close to their intended purpose, the NVAF was able to maximize the impact of their fewer and less sophisticated fighters.
+2You don't use yaw to turn an airplane in flight. It's used for more subtle purposes that are difficult to explain briefly, like keeping the plane flying straight in a crosswind or reducing the amount of roll in a slow turn.
+2@PointlessWhyshouldi :( She just big boned.
+2@Starbound
Let me know if you ever meet one.
+2@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.
+2@MikoyanGorevich21 P-47 of the sea, the F6F Hellcat. Same engine, similar obsession with ruggedness.
+2@Greggory005
No. Wing loading is the size of the wing compared to the weight of the plane. Bigger wings and lighter planes can turn tighter than heavier planes with smaller wings.
There are many other factors that determine maneuverability: speed, the amount of thrust, center of thrust, thrust vectoring (actually rotating the engine exhaust), center of lift, center of mass, the size and maximum deflection of control surfaces, the location and number of control surfaces and what kind of controls they are, and many more.
+2DONT BE BORING!
Post images in your teaser so people will be excited. Any URL ending with .jpg .gif or .png will work, but never use IMGUR. This is how:
+2
Just playing devil's advocate here, I think your plane is gorgeous and well planned.
I think the main reason someone would avoid a high-mounted wing + twin wing mounted engines on such a small plane would be efficiency. The high thrust line leads to a considerable amount of pitch-down torque, which has to be countered by the tail, leading to drag. Coupled with the additional fuel consumption of a second engine, this could be one thirsty beast. To a small-time operator, the added costs in fuel and maintenance could be a turn-off and thus, not such a common design.
Now, all of this is completely aside from the fact that this is a much more rugged and reliable design than your standard Cub-clone. While the possibility of a noobie-pilot gunning the throttle at the wrong moment could be worrisome for that high thrust line, this can be easily overcome with proper wing design and other safety features. Overall, sacrificing a bit of fuel for an exponentially safer (and heavier-lifting) plane seems like a good trade to me.
+2Lieutenant Dan, you ain't got no legs!
+2@K2K The US also used a rocket called the M8, which launched from tubes instead of individual racks like the HVAR. Aircraft would carry the tubes lashed together in a triple-launcher called the M-10. It wasn't as powerful as the HVAR, but it was certainly quite destructive and still much easier to use than regular bombs.
+2@5Ewok I seriously doubt the pilot was blamed. The rocket clearly broke loose when the arresting gear shook the plane to a stop.
+2U-238 isn't even the best isotope of uranium. SMH
U-235
But seriously, if you guys devoted half the energy towards learning how to make things, instead of arguing about upvotes, we'd all be platinum many times over.
+2You have our permission.
+2@rexrexThezion That decision is up to you.
To me, a good plane looks great and flies great. If I can't land it, if it loses control in a turn, if it's unnaturally fast or slow, then it doesn't fly well.
Good looking planes have 3D wings, realistic custom landing gear that works properly. Custom cockpits are nice, but not necessary. Markings, decals and lettering are nice, but not necessary. It has to be visually believable. The parts have to make sense.
+2@Daylight Yeah, but what did they say S. B. 2. C. stand for? I'll give you a hint: you're not allowed to say it here.
+2This is an all-time low for challenges. Low-effort builders farming upvotes with low-effort challenges. Many of the long time greats are starting to refuse to participate in them because it's become such a joke.
I noticed your Bush challenge uses a screen grab of somebody's bush plane, but the upload itself is just a single block. Didn't mention who built the plane, didn't list it as a successor. Total violation of the rules.
And here you are, complaining about a lack of upvotes? Well, make better stuff because this ain't it, chief.
+2Here you go Have a nice day
+2It's interesting how the Badger went from being overshadowed by every other Tupolev bomber as the Tu-16, to the most politically important bomber of 2020 as the H-6.
+2