@Mustang51
As for airlines, I few that are on my radar to fly for include Ameriflight, Point to Point Air Charters, Kenmore Air, Horizon Air, Alaska Airlines, jetBlue, and UPS Airlines. I'd greatly prefer to stay on the US West coast, which is my only gripe with jetBlue since they are mainly a US East coast carrier.
@Mustang51
And to answer your previous questions about Rainier Aerospace & my interest in business; No I'm currently not studying any major business or engineering-related fields/courses/degrees...... yet. I've done some basic high school classes on engineering, design, computer science, basic programming, and recently entrepreneurship. My main aspiration is to actually become a commercial pilot, but a secondary career option of mine is to go into engineering, and more recently for a 3rd option; go into entrepreneurship. I'm interested in Aerospace, Mechanical, Electrical, and Software Engineering, as well as Computer Science. Flying & Engineering/Designing/Building things have always been interests I've had since I was a kid, but entrepreneurship has been a fairly recent one I picked up. My entrepreneurship interest went into high-gear when I successfully got into an Entrepreneurship high-school class this semester that I've been interested in & trying to get into ever since 9th grade. It was a low-key interest back then, but now it's one of my main interests, rivaling flying & engineering. Playing Airline Empires believe it or not also got me more interested in the business world, particular aviation-related business. Another influence was learning about multiple successful entrepreneurs in my high school class/course, and observing other examples outside of the course content such as Elon Musk, Mike & Mark Patey twins, some of the Flying Cowboys, and even a close friend of mine, all of which run successful businesses or start-ups that enable them to enjoy life & their passions. So I figured if I decide to go down the entrepreneurship path, I figure drones would be one of the more easier aerospace-related business paths to go down. Heck, it may not even be a product I could do, but a service or platform too. I think their is a serious potential market for a "flying Uber"-like service. Although the "flying Uber" idea would probably have way more legal work to go through than making drones. There's actually been a "flying Uber" start-up I've seen in the past that failed because it was trying to get non-commercial private pilots to be able to make profit with the app & flying people around in their own planes like Uber, but it didn't work because pilots strictly need a commercial rating/license to fly-for-profit, and the app wouldn't be able to work unless the pilots using the app had commercial ratings, and not every pilot out their has or can afford commercial ratings. A recent start-up I just found today called "Blackbird" is trying to do a ride-share flying service using individual pilots & planes like the first start-up I mentioned, except this time it requires pilots to have commercial ratings to be able to fly with the app & make profit while flying.
@Mustang51
And speaking of Embraer, the E-170LR, E-175LR, & the E-190LR will probably be my Fokker F70 replacements in the future sometime when the F70's get too old or risky for regular scheduled passenger use (more than likely will be regulated to charter service only in the future), since the E-Jet is another airplane passengers seem to really love & enjoy flying on, compared to the CRJ or Dash-8.
@Mustang51
In the real-world, Alliance Airlines in Australia appears to have become a safe-haven home for Fokker aircraft such as the F50, F70, and F100. The fact that those designs have lasted this long & are finding 2nd lives in more rugged climates is a great testament to the quality of Fokker. Boeing & McDonnell Douglas (despite their woes) aircraft also have that ability of long durable lives. Bombardier, Embraer, and Airbus, while also terrific aircraft, just don't have the same longevity as Boeing, M.D., or Fokker or find 2nd markets very easily as some of the older designs. The only Airbus that has consistently seen secondary use after they are retired from the main airlines have been the A300 & A310. For Bombarier, that would go to the Dash-8 turboprop, and for Embraer, the EMB-120 is finding secondary use as a freighter.
@Mustang51
I'm actually very surprised the Fokker F70 didn't sell like hot-cakes and only 47 were built. It was a better performer than the CRJ700 (which was the prime regional jet at the time). It would have been a good fit with US regional carriers especially with the later scope-clause laws. Maybe it was because the airlines could see the writing on the wall that Fokker wasn't going to last long. It was the same story for Fairchild-Dornier & their 328 design. Although the Fokker F100 & older F28 did fare much better in sales & production, especially in the US. Fokker apparently still lives on with GKN Aerospace as "Fokker Technologies", but it's just not the same. "Rekkof" or "Netherlands Aircraft Company" was formed shortly after the original Fokker's demise and is proposing an updated F100 in the form of the "F120NG" and "F130NG" and believes the F100 design can still compete in today's modern market albeit with newer engines & winglets. Although the project hasn't gone anywhere in all these years due to insufficient funding. It's always sad to see a legend such as Fokker fade away, especially when it's a manufacture that made such good aircraft.
@Mustang51
My airline has been running since mid-summer of 2019. Outside of Airline Empires, it also offers charter services with some of the aircraft in the fleet, particularly the F70 since it can land in some pretty short airfields and has incredible range for it's size & class.
@Mustang51
And about Airline Empires, that's just a standalone free-to-play online airline simulation that isn't connected to FSX in any way. I just integrate my airline from Airline Empires to FSX based on it's stats, routes, & fleet in Airline Empires. Although for now in FSX I'm making it purely as an AI airline, and not an actual virtual airline that other flight-simmers could fly for. But it's a great simulation/game, and it's actually taught me quite a bit on the operations & economics of an airline, and even economics in general. My first 2 attempts at "Rainier Air" actually failed with my airline going bankrupt. It was barely on my 3rd try where I got my airline to generate a self-sustaining profit, and on my 4th play-through where Rainier Air exploded into a giant west coast carrier. My main approach with my airline was to have it be a point-to-point airline with a "luxury economy" where all aircraft in the fleet just have a single economy class, but that one economy class is very high-quality and the in-flight services are even free. The customer's ticket price covers all of that, although it won't be as cheap as other carriers, but the experience, quality, and service is supposed to make up for that. The point-to-point model also means there won't be any hubs customers have to funnel through to get to their destination (unless their starting airport doesn't have a direct route to their destination). As I said earlier, it took me about 2 tries to get this model to be profitable & sustainable, and the aircraft you choose to make up your fleet make a huge difference as well on whether your carrier withers or grows. The Fokker F70 & McDonnell Douglas MD-83 were very good for my airline's mission profile. The Fokker F70 could fly into pretty small airports, but still carry a good number of passengers, and could fly very far. It was also very cheap to buy/lease & operate. Passengers also love the 5-abreast seating configuration that can be found on aircraft such as the Fokker F28/F70/F100, McDonnell Douglas MD-80/90/95 (which is why I chose it over the 737 despite it's age & outdated engines), Boeing 717-200, and more recently the Bombardier Cseries/Airbus A220. But yea its a pretty sweet game & I highly recommend you give it a whack. If you do decide to join, I'm in the "Rδ" world server.
@Mustang51
Some of your builds are actually pretty unique, even if they took inspiration from a previous design. My MQ-125 right here took inspiration from the MQ-90 Quox from Ace Combat Infinity with its cranked "bat wing" design, although the MQ-90 and MQ-125 serve totally different missions and have different capabilities.
@Mustang51
I also absolutely love it when I see others make their own companies too (I love competition when it comes to businesses & companies; after all it is healthy for the economy). While their isn't a whole lot of people in SP with serious fictional companies, SR2 definitely has a lot more since it has a career mode in development. My main fictional competitors include:
Scout Company (SP; jamesPLANESii)
Martin™ (SP & SR2; Chancey21)
Kell Aerospace (SR2; Kell)
Max-Q Aerospace (SR2; Teague)
Aerojet Mariodyne (SR2; MarioG)
Merso Aerospace (SR2; diegoavion84)
Tronna (SR2; jamesPLANESii)
@Mustang51
Same. I've got a bit of entrepreneurship spirit in me and "Rainier Aviation Group" has become my "fantasy aviation empire", sort of like Evergreen Aviation International, which was a now-defunct aviation group that hosted several sub-divisions and companies that specialized in scheduled routes, charters, military & CIA charters, aircraft maintenance, 747 super tanker water bomber services, as well as a museum & waterpark known as "Evergreen Aviation & Space Museum" and "Wings & Waves Waterpark". The museum is home to the famous "Spruce Goose" and the waterpark has a retired 747-100 on top of it with water slides coming out the sides of it! Also, ironically Evergreen was based in the Pacific Northwest (particularly McMinnville, OR), just like my fictional company, except my HQ is in Moses Lake, WA. Although Evergreen was purely a service-based organization, while Rainier offers both services & produced products. Maybe someday it could happen IRL, but I don't think it would be anywhere near the scale I'm making it fictionally. If I do pursue a real "Rainier Aerospace" company in the future sometime, it would probably be a small drone company that makes quad-copters and long-endurance UAV's that could have civilian & military applications.
@Mustang51
Thanks! Rainier Aerospace was still in it's infancy when you last saw me (Rainier had only built the Redback & Goblin II drones at that time). Rainier now has a few serious production lines of aircraft, weapon systems, and even land vehicles. The "Rainier brand" also extended with multiple divisions and sister-companies, such as Rainier Air (a recent virtual airline in FSX I made that flies throughout the US West coast, Western Canada, & Alaska).
@JeremiahMartin1000
They aren't legs; they are some sort of antenna array, and a witness from the incident aboard the USS Princeton that saw the tic tac through binoculars, said he saw strange apendages on the bottom of the craft that looked like swept-back antennas.
@Zanedavid
I just took the dummy alone and see what the game measured the object as, and sized the dummy until it's measurements matched that of a human in the game. And then I used that dummy as a "standard" when it comes to build size.
@WrightAirCo
Why, thanks! I believe that's the Colt your doing. It's basically a dumbed-down Pacer/Tri-Pacer geared specifically towards basic flight training (basically competing to the Cessna 150/152). Powered by a 108HP Lycoming O-235, and it has no flaps if I recall correctly. Tag me when you complete it!
@Tacocat16
I'm not saying the Mini-Max/Hi-Max's are bad, I'd just go with a more reliable engine & one with more HP. I mean they're successful for a reason; it's a very well-built ultralight with a "big plane" feel to it. Also, I think the Rotax sounds sexy. Although the Yamaha Apex Mohawk Aero Conversion looks really promising. A super light engine that pushes 140HP stock, and 300HP when turbocharged (which is the setup Steve Henry has in Yee Haw 7). I put a 100HP Continental O-200D in my Corben Baby Ace in FSX (specifically the model with the tundra tires ;) ) and it climbs like a bat out of hell! Now I'm thinking of giving it the 300HP turbocharged Yamaha Apex and see what it will do with that. Should make one heck of a STOL Drag airplane!
@Tacocat16
That's just my tastes. Maybe with the Rotax 582, but definitely not a 1 cylinder engine. Plus I actually flew Flight Replica's Mini-Max in FSX (freeware addon), and with my weight in it, the plane would be overgross. I didn't overgross the Corben Baby Ace, so that would be my go-to single-seat "joyride" airplane.
@Tacocat16
Oh I've seen that before; that's the Hi-Max. My only gripe with those and the Mini-Max is the powerplants. I don't think I'd be as comfortable flying a plane with a 40-60 HP 1 or 2 cylinder engine. I think I'd prefer a Corben Baby Ace with a Continental A65/C85 that has 65-85 HP and 4 cylinders.
@Tacocat16
Wow you saw Draco at Reno? That is too cool man! I went to the Reno Air Races back in 2016. Definitely one of the best airshows on the planet! I had a feeling Mike was going to rebuild Draco (I mean come on, the dude's enthusiasm & spirit is bullet-proof!), although when Chandra & Mike said Draco's damage was worse than they thought (and Draco was considered totaled), I thought that would be the end for Draco. But boy am I glad I'm wrong! :D
@Tacocat16
I think I have a better name for my Pacer: "Dream Chaser"! Sounds better than just Chaser IMO. Plus it is quite literally a dream plane of mine. Here's "Dream Chaser" compared to a Maule M7: Photo 1 Photo 2 Photo 3 Photo 4
@Tacocat16
Maybe. But when you think about it, the family line goes: Cub >>> Super Cub >>> Pacer/Tri-Pacer >>> Maule >>> Bearhawk. So they all trace back to the Cub. XD
@Tacocat16
I think the Bearhawk & Super Cub have different airfoils. But a friend told me the Bearhawk was designed or inspired from the Maule, and that the Maule in turn was inspired from the Pacer. And if you look & compare them together, they do look fairly similar or have similar lines. The Bearhawk even has similar clam-shell style passenger doors as the Maule.
@Tacocat16
My first certified airplane would probably be the Piper Pacer, while my first experimental airplane would be either the RANS S-21 Outbound or the Zenith CH-750 STOL since those kits are very easy & quick to work with. But if I bought a Pacer, or a Tri-Pacer with the Univair PA-20/22 tailwheel conversion, my "dream" STC mods for it would be; 180HP Lycoming O-360 VG's on the wing & tail Extended squared-off & drooped wing tips (creates MUCH better lift than the round wing-tips, as well as decreases the stall speed) Heavy-duty Super Cub-style landing gear with Maule oleo struts Left-side door conversion Left & right-side seaplane-style doors Modernized instrument panel (with both gauges & glass instruments)
And then I'd call it a "Super Pacer 180" and nickname it "Chaser". The Pacer in the LHC pack is actually a "Super Pacer 180" and comes with many configurations, and I've made my own custom configuration with my own custom paint, and instrument panel, as well as more flatter prop than default for better STOL performance. But it's still missing some of the STC mods I'd like for it to have (and I can't just go and edit the physical model in Blender or something). So I figure I might someday make my ultimate "dream" Pacer in SimplePlanes.
@Tacocat16
I never really gave the Piper Pacer/Tri-Pacer much thought until last year when I got the LHC Piper Pacer Pack for FSX, and I started doing a little bit of research on them. You can find one in good condition for sale around $20,000-$35,000, which is about the price of a Cessna 150/152 trainier, but the Pacer's performance is fairly close to the Cessna 172 Skyhawk (if not exceeds in some areas, especially with certain STC mods). You'll only find either early-model or poorly-taken-care-of Cessna 172's for sale at that price range, while the nicer late model ones (such as the M/N/P) will go $40,000-$80,000. Basically the Piper Pacer IMO is one of the biggest bang-for-the-buck planes you could probably buy. It can go fairly fast, can be outfitted as a bush plane, has a fairly long range for it's class, can carry 4 people (well, more like 2 adults + 2 kids or 2 light adults), or if you take out the back seats, it has a huge baggage area with a nice big baggage door to have access to it, sort of like the Maule, and in that config. it would make an awesome 2-person bushplane.
Pacers, Maules, and Bearhawks are some of my favorite bushplanes. Fun fact: The Maule is based off the Pacer, and the Bearhawk is based off the Maule. They are all related to each other lol. The RANS S-21 Outbound and Zenith CH-750 are also favorites of mine. :)
@LeonardoEngineering
Actually your Mozzie would probably beat my Owl in a knife-fight. The Owl would only stand a chance if it can use the AIM-9X or laser turret it will potentially field. One is a nimble little attack fighter, and the other is a border-line A-10 with turboprops.
@Tacocat16
Oh nice! Yea that would be pretty sweet. I haven't been able to make the Arlington Fly-In anymore since it just so happens to run during the same week I'm gone on an annual camping trip in Winthrop, WA during early August.
@Tacocat16
KENT? Bruh your like 60-70 miles south of me. I'm in Arlington (actually I'm a little more in Stanwood, but everyone knows Arlington/Marysville better than a small town like Stanwood). That's so cool I didn't realize the Speedmail was that quick. Although I figured it must have been a fast plane back then considering the name. I think the New Standard D-25 is the only classic I've flown in. Other general aviation aircraft I've flown in (and have flown at the controls) include a Cessna 172M Skyhawk, Cessna 172S Skyhawk II, and my friend's homebuilt Murphy Rebel bushplane.
@Mustang51
As for airlines, I few that are on my radar to fly for include Ameriflight, Point to Point Air Charters, Kenmore Air, Horizon Air, Alaska Airlines, jetBlue, and UPS Airlines. I'd greatly prefer to stay on the US West coast, which is my only gripe with jetBlue since they are mainly a US East coast carrier.
@Mustang51
Yes I've flown 4 different airplanes so far and 3 different types. I've flown a Cessna 172M Skyhawk, Cessna 172S Skyhawk II, and more recently a Murphy Rebel homebuilt bushplane that belongs to a friend of mine.
@Mustang51
And to answer your previous questions about Rainier Aerospace & my interest in business; No I'm currently not studying any major business or engineering-related fields/courses/degrees...... yet. I've done some basic high school classes on engineering, design, computer science, basic programming, and recently entrepreneurship. My main aspiration is to actually become a commercial pilot, but a secondary career option of mine is to go into engineering, and more recently for a 3rd option; go into entrepreneurship. I'm interested in Aerospace, Mechanical, Electrical, and Software Engineering, as well as Computer Science. Flying & Engineering/Designing/Building things have always been interests I've had since I was a kid, but entrepreneurship has been a fairly recent one I picked up. My entrepreneurship interest went into high-gear when I successfully got into an Entrepreneurship high-school class this semester that I've been interested in & trying to get into ever since 9th grade. It was a low-key interest back then, but now it's one of my main interests, rivaling flying & engineering. Playing Airline Empires believe it or not also got me more interested in the business world, particular aviation-related business. Another influence was learning about multiple successful entrepreneurs in my high school class/course, and observing other examples outside of the course content such as Elon Musk, Mike & Mark Patey twins, some of the Flying Cowboys, and even a close friend of mine, all of which run successful businesses or start-ups that enable them to enjoy life & their passions. So I figured if I decide to go down the entrepreneurship path, I figure drones would be one of the more easier aerospace-related business paths to go down. Heck, it may not even be a product I could do, but a service or platform too. I think their is a serious potential market for a "flying Uber"-like service. Although the "flying Uber" idea would probably have way more legal work to go through than making drones. There's actually been a "flying Uber" start-up I've seen in the past that failed because it was trying to get non-commercial private pilots to be able to make profit with the app & flying people around in their own planes like Uber, but it didn't work because pilots strictly need a commercial rating/license to fly-for-profit, and the app wouldn't be able to work unless the pilots using the app had commercial ratings, and not every pilot out their has or can afford commercial ratings. A recent start-up I just found today called "Blackbird" is trying to do a ride-share flying service using individual pilots & planes like the first start-up I mentioned, except this time it requires pilots to have commercial ratings to be able to fly with the app & make profit while flying.
@Mustang51
And speaking of Embraer, the E-170LR, E-175LR, & the E-190LR will probably be my Fokker F70 replacements in the future sometime when the F70's get too old or risky for regular scheduled passenger use (more than likely will be regulated to charter service only in the future), since the E-Jet is another airplane passengers seem to really love & enjoy flying on, compared to the CRJ or Dash-8.
@Mustang51
In the real-world, Alliance Airlines in Australia appears to have become a safe-haven home for Fokker aircraft such as the F50, F70, and F100. The fact that those designs have lasted this long & are finding 2nd lives in more rugged climates is a great testament to the quality of Fokker. Boeing & McDonnell Douglas (despite their woes) aircraft also have that ability of long durable lives. Bombardier, Embraer, and Airbus, while also terrific aircraft, just don't have the same longevity as Boeing, M.D., or Fokker or find 2nd markets very easily as some of the older designs. The only Airbus that has consistently seen secondary use after they are retired from the main airlines have been the A300 & A310. For Bombarier, that would go to the Dash-8 turboprop, and for Embraer, the EMB-120 is finding secondary use as a freighter.
@Mustang51
I'm actually very surprised the Fokker F70 didn't sell like hot-cakes and only 47 were built. It was a better performer than the CRJ700 (which was the prime regional jet at the time). It would have been a good fit with US regional carriers especially with the later scope-clause laws. Maybe it was because the airlines could see the writing on the wall that Fokker wasn't going to last long. It was the same story for Fairchild-Dornier & their 328 design. Although the Fokker F100 & older F28 did fare much better in sales & production, especially in the US. Fokker apparently still lives on with GKN Aerospace as "Fokker Technologies", but it's just not the same. "Rekkof" or "Netherlands Aircraft Company" was formed shortly after the original Fokker's demise and is proposing an updated F100 in the form of the "F120NG" and "F130NG" and believes the F100 design can still compete in today's modern market albeit with newer engines & winglets. Although the project hasn't gone anywhere in all these years due to insufficient funding. It's always sad to see a legend such as Fokker fade away, especially when it's a manufacture that made such good aircraft.
@Mustang51
My airline has been running since mid-summer of 2019. Outside of Airline Empires, it also offers charter services with some of the aircraft in the fleet, particularly the F70 since it can land in some pretty short airfields and has incredible range for it's size & class.
@Mustang51
+1And about Airline Empires, that's just a standalone free-to-play online airline simulation that isn't connected to FSX in any way. I just integrate my airline from Airline Empires to FSX based on it's stats, routes, & fleet in Airline Empires. Although for now in FSX I'm making it purely as an AI airline, and not an actual virtual airline that other flight-simmers could fly for. But it's a great simulation/game, and it's actually taught me quite a bit on the operations & economics of an airline, and even economics in general. My first 2 attempts at "Rainier Air" actually failed with my airline going bankrupt. It was barely on my 3rd try where I got my airline to generate a self-sustaining profit, and on my 4th play-through where Rainier Air exploded into a giant west coast carrier. My main approach with my airline was to have it be a point-to-point airline with a "luxury economy" where all aircraft in the fleet just have a single economy class, but that one economy class is very high-quality and the in-flight services are even free. The customer's ticket price covers all of that, although it won't be as cheap as other carriers, but the experience, quality, and service is supposed to make up for that. The point-to-point model also means there won't be any hubs customers have to funnel through to get to their destination (unless their starting airport doesn't have a direct route to their destination). As I said earlier, it took me about 2 tries to get this model to be profitable & sustainable, and the aircraft you choose to make up your fleet make a huge difference as well on whether your carrier withers or grows. The Fokker F70 & McDonnell Douglas MD-83 were very good for my airline's mission profile. The Fokker F70 could fly into pretty small airports, but still carry a good number of passengers, and could fly very far. It was also very cheap to buy/lease & operate. Passengers also love the 5-abreast seating configuration that can be found on aircraft such as the Fokker F28/F70/F100, McDonnell Douglas MD-80/90/95 (which is why I chose it over the 737 despite it's age & outdated engines), Boeing 717-200, and more recently the Bombardier Cseries/Airbus A220. But yea its a pretty sweet game & I highly recommend you give it a whack. If you do decide to join, I'm in the "Rδ" world server.
@Mustang51
Some of your builds are actually pretty unique, even if they took inspiration from a previous design. My MQ-125 right here took inspiration from the MQ-90 Quox from Ace Combat Infinity with its cranked "bat wing" design, although the MQ-90 and MQ-125 serve totally different missions and have different capabilities.
@Mustang51
+1I also absolutely love it when I see others make their own companies too (I love competition when it comes to businesses & companies; after all it is healthy for the economy). While their isn't a whole lot of people in SP with serious fictional companies, SR2 definitely has a lot more since it has a career mode in development. My main fictional competitors include:
Scout Company (SP; jamesPLANESii)
Martin™ (SP & SR2; Chancey21)
Kell Aerospace (SR2; Kell)
Max-Q Aerospace (SR2; Teague)
Aerojet Mariodyne (SR2; MarioG)
Merso Aerospace (SR2; diegoavion84)
Tronna (SR2; jamesPLANESii)
@Mustang51
+1Same. I've got a bit of entrepreneurship spirit in me and "Rainier Aviation Group" has become my "fantasy aviation empire", sort of like Evergreen Aviation International, which was a now-defunct aviation group that hosted several sub-divisions and companies that specialized in scheduled routes, charters, military & CIA charters, aircraft maintenance, 747 super tanker water bomber services, as well as a museum & waterpark known as "Evergreen Aviation & Space Museum" and "Wings & Waves Waterpark". The museum is home to the famous "Spruce Goose" and the waterpark has a retired 747-100 on top of it with water slides coming out the sides of it! Also, ironically Evergreen was based in the Pacific Northwest (particularly McMinnville, OR), just like my fictional company, except my HQ is in Moses Lake, WA. Although Evergreen was purely a service-based organization, while Rainier offers both services & produced products. Maybe someday it could happen IRL, but I don't think it would be anywhere near the scale I'm making it fictionally. If I do pursue a real "Rainier Aerospace" company in the future sometime, it would probably be a small drone company that makes quad-copters and long-endurance UAV's that could have civilian & military applications.
@Mustang51
Thanks! Rainier Aerospace was still in it's infancy when you last saw me (Rainier had only built the Redback & Goblin II drones at that time). Rainier now has a few serious production lines of aircraft, weapon systems, and even land vehicles. The "Rainier brand" also extended with multiple divisions and sister-companies, such as Rainier Air (a recent virtual airline in FSX I made that flies throughout the US West coast, Western Canada, & Alaska).
@JeremiahMartin1000
They aren't legs; they are some sort of antenna array, and a witness from the incident aboard the USS Princeton that saw the tic tac through binoculars, said he saw strange apendages on the bottom of the craft that looked like swept-back antennas.
@Fartspoppop
Oh oof. Well I don't plan on doing any replicas anytime soon.
Congrats!
Everyone knows my profile pics are supreme
Wow your truly a master when it comes to simplicity!
+1@Fartspoppop
Is jamesPLANESii's Draco not mobile friendly enough?
@LeonardoEngineering
+1r/whoosh
Nice quote though lol
@Zanedavid
+1I just took the dummy alone and see what the game measured the object as, and sized the dummy until it's measurements matched that of a human in the game. And then I used that dummy as a "standard" when it comes to build size.
Bell Lawyers: "Allow us to introduce ourselves!"
+1Wait
The test dummy wasn't made by Jundroo?
My life has been a lie.
@Kimfri
Thanks!
No joke, I thought that first pic was from FSX or some old combat flight sim! XD
@FranzPeterSiegfried
Thanks!
@WrightAirCo
Why, thanks! I believe that's the Colt your doing. It's basically a dumbed-down Pacer/Tri-Pacer geared specifically towards basic flight training (basically competing to the Cessna 150/152). Powered by a 108HP Lycoming O-235, and it has no flaps if I recall correctly. Tag me when you complete it!
@Tacocat16
I'm not saying the Mini-Max/Hi-Max's are bad, I'd just go with a more reliable engine & one with more HP. I mean they're successful for a reason; it's a very well-built ultralight with a "big plane" feel to it. Also, I think the Rotax sounds sexy. Although the Yamaha Apex Mohawk Aero Conversion looks really promising. A super light engine that pushes 140HP stock, and 300HP when turbocharged (which is the setup Steve Henry has in Yee Haw 7). I put a 100HP Continental O-200D in my Corben Baby Ace in FSX (specifically the model with the tundra tires ;) ) and it climbs like a bat out of hell! Now I'm thinking of giving it the 300HP turbocharged Yamaha Apex and see what it will do with that. Should make one heck of a STOL Drag airplane!
@Tacocat16
That's just my tastes. Maybe with the Rotax 582, but definitely not a 1 cylinder engine. Plus I actually flew Flight Replica's Mini-Max in FSX (freeware addon), and with my weight in it, the plane would be overgross. I didn't overgross the Corben Baby Ace, so that would be my go-to single-seat "joyride" airplane.
@Tacocat16
Oh I've seen that before; that's the Hi-Max. My only gripe with those and the Mini-Max is the powerplants. I don't think I'd be as comfortable flying a plane with a 40-60 HP 1 or 2 cylinder engine. I think I'd prefer a Corben Baby Ace with a Continental A65/C85 that has 65-85 HP and 4 cylinders.
@Tacocat16
+1Wow you saw Draco at Reno? That is too cool man! I went to the Reno Air Races back in 2016. Definitely one of the best airshows on the planet! I had a feeling Mike was going to rebuild Draco (I mean come on, the dude's enthusiasm & spirit is bullet-proof!), although when Chandra & Mike said Draco's damage was worse than they thought (and Draco was considered totaled), I thought that would be the end for Draco. But boy am I glad I'm wrong! :D
@Tacocat16
+1I think I have a better name for my Pacer: "Dream Chaser"! Sounds better than just Chaser IMO. Plus it is quite literally a dream plane of mine. Here's "Dream Chaser" compared to a Maule M7:
Photo 1
Photo 2
Photo 3
Photo 4
@Tacocat16
Wow well that's pretty cool!
@Tacocat16
Great news indeed! :D
@Chancey21
YES please!
@Tacocat16
Maybe. But when you think about it, the family line goes: Cub >>> Super Cub >>> Pacer/Tri-Pacer >>> Maule >>> Bearhawk. So they all trace back to the Cub. XD
@Armyguy1534
He already saw it; he commented on the video.
@Tacocat16
Also here's a sick 4-place Cub built by Airframes Alaska called the "Super Ultima Cub", and it's literally a widened Super Cub. @jamesPLANESii you might want to take a look at this beast!
@Tacocat16
I think the Bearhawk & Super Cub have different airfoils. But a friend told me the Bearhawk was designed or inspired from the Maule, and that the Maule in turn was inspired from the Pacer. And if you look & compare them together, they do look fairly similar or have similar lines. The Bearhawk even has similar clam-shell style passenger doors as the Maule.
@Tacocat16
+2My first certified airplane would probably be the Piper Pacer, while my first experimental airplane would be either the RANS S-21 Outbound or the Zenith CH-750 STOL since those kits are very easy & quick to work with. But if I bought a Pacer, or a Tri-Pacer with the Univair PA-20/22 tailwheel conversion, my "dream" STC mods for it would be;
180HP Lycoming O-360
VG's on the wing & tail
Extended squared-off & drooped wing tips (creates MUCH better lift than the round wing-tips, as well as decreases the stall speed)
Heavy-duty Super Cub-style landing gear with Maule oleo struts
Left-side door conversion
Left & right-side seaplane-style doors
Modernized instrument panel (with both gauges & glass instruments)
And then I'd call it a "Super Pacer 180" and nickname it "Chaser". The Pacer in the LHC pack is actually a "Super Pacer 180" and comes with many configurations, and I've made my own custom configuration with my own custom paint, and instrument panel, as well as more flatter prop than default for better STOL performance. But it's still missing some of the STC mods I'd like for it to have (and I can't just go and edit the physical model in Blender or something). So I figure I might someday make my ultimate "dream" Pacer in SimplePlanes.
@Tacocat16
+2I never really gave the Piper Pacer/Tri-Pacer much thought until last year when I got the LHC Piper Pacer Pack for FSX, and I started doing a little bit of research on them. You can find one in good condition for sale around $20,000-$35,000, which is about the price of a Cessna 150/152 trainier, but the Pacer's performance is fairly close to the Cessna 172 Skyhawk (if not exceeds in some areas, especially with certain STC mods). You'll only find either early-model or poorly-taken-care-of Cessna 172's for sale at that price range, while the nicer late model ones (such as the M/N/P) will go $40,000-$80,000. Basically the Piper Pacer IMO is one of the biggest bang-for-the-buck planes you could probably buy. It can go fairly fast, can be outfitted as a bush plane, has a fairly long range for it's class, can carry 4 people (well, more like 2 adults + 2 kids or 2 light adults), or if you take out the back seats, it has a huge baggage area with a nice big baggage door to have access to it, sort of like the Maule, and in that config. it would make an awesome 2-person bushplane.
Since when was a 747 a tail-dragger?
+1Oh, I thought you were dead.
Sees Maule
I'LL TAKE YOUR ENTIRE STOCK!
Pacers, Maules, and Bearhawks are some of my favorite bushplanes. Fun fact: The Maule is based off the Pacer, and the Bearhawk is based off the Maule. They are all related to each other lol. The RANS S-21 Outbound and Zenith CH-750 are also favorites of mine. :)
+2Wow this is one epic attack aircraft! A very modern design!
@LeonardoEngineering
+1Actually your Mozzie would probably beat my Owl in a knife-fight. The Owl would only stand a chance if it can use the AIM-9X or laser turret it will potentially field. One is a nimble little attack fighter, and the other is a border-line A-10 with turboprops.
@Tacocat16
Oh nice! Yea that would be pretty sweet. I haven't been able to make the Arlington Fly-In anymore since it just so happens to run during the same week I'm gone on an annual camping trip in Winthrop, WA during early August.
@LeonardoEngineering
But what if there is a certain Owl that can? ;)
But what if an Owl eats the mosquito? ;)
+1@Tacocat16
KENT? Bruh your like 60-70 miles south of me. I'm in Arlington (actually I'm a little more in Stanwood, but everyone knows Arlington/Marysville better than a small town like Stanwood). That's so cool I didn't realize the Speedmail was that quick. Although I figured it must have been a fast plane back then considering the name. I think the New Standard D-25 is the only classic I've flown in. Other general aviation aircraft I've flown in (and have flown at the controls) include a Cessna 172M Skyhawk, Cessna 172S Skyhawk II, and my friend's homebuilt Murphy Rebel bushplane.
Big oof. Looks like the Iron Golem is out of a job.
+1