If it’s not designed to fly fast, why does it have variable wing sweep and an afterburner with a 12-foot flame propelling it ever-so-close to Mach 1? Fastest pure-bred UCAV ever, imho!
Then again, this has to be THE most beautiful afterburner exhaust flame I’ve seen in SP so far! ;-)
Cool unique design! Just for some historical context: the X-10 wasn’t actually named ‚Navaho‘. That was the name of an earlier cruise missile design, the SM-64 Navaho, of which many design features were adopted for the X-10. 🤓🤓🤓 Exiting geek-mode now. Sorry.
Shape‘s perfect, flies well. No go for some more detail :-). I’d love to this fully fleshed out - like, imagine if the YF-23 had won over the YF-22. Would’ve been one sexy super fighter!
Or the angle of the engine/prop rotation could be limited so that they produce propulsion just past the wings‘ trailing edge, effectively making it a STOL plane, rather than a VTOL. Or you just completely ignore my bickering. ;-) Anyway, just pointing this out b/c I really like your build on every other respect.
@Rymanx03 I had no intention of making this a less friendly place. On the contrary, I’d like to keep real life differences outside of the community, including political ones. I apologize for coming on a little too strong. I guess I’ve become too sensitive ever since the war started.
@ValkyrieXB71 I am aware of that. And it goes without saying that a Mach 3+ fighter/interceptor needs some sort of radar. But why, or rather: how is it a design requirement? Does it just need to have a nose cone that looks like it houses a radar or does the actual radar antenna need to be visible by means of opening the nose cone? That would be a lot to ask considering the 350 part limitation while also requiring a cockpit. Please specifiy or adjust the requirements if possible, I may not be the only one who’s confused here. Aside from that I’m actually looking forward to this challenge!
@RYAviation Damn. Honest mistake. Didn’t check. Sooo, that’s kind of a letdown. Well, he did manage to turn the original F-35A into a B model by adding a very functional VTOL system while ending up with a lower part count than the original. Soo I guess that’s kind of a plus in the end.
@nmfy Thanks for not taking my comment the wrong way. I think you did a great job. Myself, I’m still miles away from achieving such a clean build! It’s just that there are so many other cool F-4s on here, too… ;-)
@Kavazano Huh. Not sure if decrying a supposed lack of upvotes is a good way of attracting more upvotes. That said, here’s a couple of suggestions mixed with some (hopefully) constructive criticism:
The design and execution are, in my humble opinion, good (aside from the magical missiles creeping out the sides by accident, that’s just confusing). It seems pretty realistic, as far as fictional builds go. However, I think the build lacks that extra ‚something‘ to make it stand out. It really just looks a lot like the Bell 360 Invictus. Try adding a cannon or some other cool armament or functionality.
The Name and symbology feel strange and bar any explanation or back story. What is ‚Wanton‘ supposed to mean here? Why Baphomet/Bafoumeh? What’s with all the pentagram stuff?
The flying characteristics are … well, to be honest: the thing flies like a school bus with a broken steering column. Needs fixing. It looks very agile and it’d be cool to get the same feeling from flying it. This should make you want to blast through the canyon and wipe out the convoy in a single run.
Are there any hidden functions in the AGs that I’m missing out on here? EDIT: I just noticed how friggin huge this thing is: It’s like 100 ft long and 50,000 lbs. That might explain its sluggish flying.
Hope this doesn’t come off to rough. I am, by no means, a pro at this and my only public build is haphazard at best. But I do know and love my favorite SP attack helicopters. It would be great if this could be improved upon.
Whenever I’m scrolling through this/last year’s top rated builds I come back to this one and I wonder how this got so many upvotes? I mean no offense, it’s a very decent build, even really good in certain areas. But what caused this to be upvoted so disproportionately? Is there some kind of algorithm involved I’m not aware of?
@WinsWings … well, I was joking since it obviously resembles an F-86. But as a replica, it wouldn’t really hold up, I believe (I didn’t use any blueprints, either). So there it is. Something kinda close to an F-86 … but not quite. ;-)
@OrderlyHippo It could be wonky at slow speeds, but a very specific reason: Sometimes the slats (leading-edge flaps) would deploy asymmetrically, resulting in weird, adverse flight characteristics, like auto-rolling or rolling and bumping in the wrong direction, especially at high angle of attack maneuvers. When the Blue Angels flew the Skyhawk, they locked the slats at the fully retracted position in order to lower the risk of losing control of the airplane.
I love the concept and many things about the design. It’s very well-built and extremely pretty.
But there’s one huge flaw that makes it less-than-believable: The props are directly above the wings. That means: when they rotate up for vertical takeoff, they couldn’t never produce any vertical lift in reality, as the prop only pushes against the wing instead of pushing away from the ground. Maybe that’s something that could be addressed by using four (smaller) engines, two in front and two behind the wings?
Absolutely beautiful! Flies well too. Only minor criticisms I have: 1) the tailplane is missing the taileron function, i.e. it only moves with pitch input, but not with roll.
2) the AMRAAMS have blue („inert/practice“) markings while the AIM-9s have the yellow „live warhead“ marking - but that is reall just purely cosmetic nitpicking. ;-)
One more question about the rules: Does a default wing that’s partly covered by a piece of fuselage constitute a custom wing? Meaning: Will this disqualify my build?
Deer Sir, I adore your builds! This is yet another example of a near-perfect simple plane. I’m also a great fan of the numerous alternate loadouts.
One little thing had me wondering while maneuvering: It seems like the main engines might be a wee bit underpowered. I realize that a fully loaded Foxtrott Super Hornet is not gonna go supersonic at sea level with three drop tanks. However, even when the entire combat load (default version) is jettisoned, it takes the plane a significant while to get to, and then above Mach 1 at, say, 20,000 ft. Is this intentional or would you care to revise the thrust in order to give it a little more oomph?
Again: not a major point of criticism, just nitpicking. ;-)
Damn, missed the deadline by roughly 2 hrs. My kid kept me busy at night when I wanted to be building. Can I still upload? I’m fine with being outside the competition . Just finished my thing anyway ;-)
@jamesPLANESii Thing is, the original Gazelle (SA-340) actually had a conventional tail rotor, it was just set up differently than portrayed here. Didn’t have a v-stab, which made it look … interesting.
@ValkyrieXB71 Well, not really „any fighter“. More like a very specific type of fighter which narrows down the creative choices significantly. There generally is no need to go that fast except for the „getting there quick“ part of intercepting long-range bombers. Very fast fighters generally don’t handle well. Be that as it may, what do you mean by „nose radar antenna“? Does that mean that the
radar must be visible/accessible?
It accelerates like it’s shot from a catapult and then stops dead at around 500 mph. After that, it becomes unflyable due to weird yaw behavior. This needs more work.
@MrAdhmGamer Wow, then you really haven’t seen much. Not to say that this is a bad build or anything. But it’s hardly an accurate replica either - as stated by the author, it’s a „remake“. There are lots of other builds that are „better F-4s“ (meaning replicas) on here that are less hard on your potato. ;-)
@TheNightmareCompany Got it. But that was basically my question: is there any real aircraft in existence that could fulfill the criteria of this contest?
@Pnicks15 Well, they didn’t. Boeing made 3 prototypes and tried to sell it to the USAAF and Navy, but they didn’t end up acquiring it, even though it had quite impressive capabilities.
Congrats on pursuing your dream job! Go get em!
+11If it’s not designed to fly fast, why does it have variable wing sweep and an afterburner with a 12-foot flame propelling it ever-so-close to Mach 1? Fastest pure-bred UCAV ever, imho!
Then again, this has to be THE most beautiful afterburner exhaust flame I’ve seen in SP so far! ;-)
Just messing with you a little. I really like it!
+8Jundroo should make you their head of marketing. It’s perfect!
+7Sooo, about that AG1 …
+6Cool unique design! Just for some historical context: the X-10 wasn’t actually named ‚Navaho‘. That was the name of an earlier cruise missile design, the SM-64 Navaho, of which many design features were adopted for the X-10. 🤓🤓🤓 Exiting geek-mode now. Sorry.
+5@RicardoACE THIS
„ update simpleplans and add maps for mobile mobile devices, it's boring to see only sea, my cell phone is powerful and can support them.“
+4This looks very promising. You definitely got the shape and dimensions down pretty much perfectly! Keep it up!
+4Shape‘s perfect, flies well. No go for some more detail :-). I’d love to this fully fleshed out - like, imagine if the YF-23 had won over the YF-22. Would’ve been one sexy super fighter!
+3Beautiful and rare! Though I have to ask: is anyone else experiencing rather heavy auto-roll to the left?
+3This style works really well! Great idea in the spirit of building actual simple planes.
+3Or the angle of the engine/prop rotation could be limited so that they produce propulsion just past the wings‘ trailing edge, effectively making it a STOL plane, rather than a VTOL. Or you just completely ignore my bickering. ;-) Anyway, just pointing this out b/c I really like your build on every other respect.
+3@Rymanx03 I had no intention of making this a less friendly place. On the contrary, I’d like to keep real life differences outside of the community, including political ones. I apologize for coming on a little too strong. I guess I’ve become too sensitive ever since the war started.
+3@ValkyrieXB71 I am aware of that. And it goes without saying that a Mach 3+ fighter/interceptor needs some sort of radar. But why, or rather: how is it a design requirement? Does it just need to have a nose cone that looks like it houses a radar or does the actual radar antenna need to be visible by means of opening the nose cone? That would be a lot to ask considering the 350 part limitation while also requiring a cockpit. Please specifiy or adjust the requirements if possible, I may not be the only one who’s confused here. Aside from that I’m actually looking forward to this challenge!
+3@RYAviation Damn. Honest mistake. Didn’t check. Sooo, that’s kind of a letdown. Well, he did manage to turn the original F-35A into a B model by adding a very functional VTOL system while ending up with a lower part count than the original. Soo I guess that’s kind of a plus in the end.
+3@nmfy Thanks for not taking my comment the wrong way. I think you did a great job. Myself, I’m still miles away from achieving such a clean build! It’s just that there are so many other cool F-4s on here, too… ;-)
+3@Kavazano Huh. Not sure if decrying a supposed lack of upvotes is a good way of attracting more upvotes. That said, here’s a couple of suggestions mixed with some (hopefully) constructive criticism:
The design and execution are, in my humble opinion, good (aside from the magical missiles creeping out the sides by accident, that’s just confusing). It seems pretty realistic, as far as fictional builds go. However, I think the build lacks that extra ‚something‘ to make it stand out. It really just looks a lot like the Bell 360 Invictus. Try adding a cannon or some other cool armament or functionality.
The Name and symbology feel strange and bar any explanation or back story. What is ‚Wanton‘ supposed to mean here? Why Baphomet/Bafoumeh? What’s with all the pentagram stuff?
The flying characteristics are … well, to be honest: the thing flies like a school bus with a broken steering column. Needs fixing. It looks very agile and it’d be cool to get the same feeling from flying it. This should make you want to blast through the canyon and wipe out the convoy in a single run.
Are there any hidden functions in the AGs that I’m missing out on here? EDIT: I just noticed how friggin huge this thing is: It’s like 100 ft long and 50,000 lbs. That might explain its sluggish flying.
Hope this doesn’t come off to rough. I am, by no means, a pro at this and my only public build is haphazard at best. But I do know and love my favorite SP attack helicopters. It would be great if this could be improved upon.
Cheers!
+3So cool! Finally someone is showing the A-10‘s even uglier, rejected, sibling some love! I was about to build this as well. Now, I don’t have to! ;-)
+2You, sir, should most definitely produce more ft content, and especially in video form! Great analytical approach and super professional narration.
+2@LlamaIndustries It's anything BUT an Apache. But if you're out for references, it's practically a Cobra with landing gear instead of skids.
+2@ZeroHours SP community at its best ... or worst ... in a nutshell.
+2Whenever I’m scrolling through this/last year’s top rated builds I come back to this one and I wonder how this got so many upvotes? I mean no offense, it’s a very decent build, even really good in certain areas. But what caused this to be upvoted so disproportionately? Is there some kind of algorithm involved I’m not aware of?
+2@WolfHunter9111 Classic and classy at the same time. To me, this is what SP is all about.
+2@WolfHunter9111 This is one of the coolest, yet most subtle symbiotic relationships here in SP! Looking forward to the cockpit.
+2@WinsWings … well, I was joking since it obviously resembles an F-86. But as a replica, it wouldn’t really hold up, I believe (I didn’t use any blueprints, either). So there it is. Something kinda close to an F-86 … but not quite. ;-)
+2@WinsWings Whoohooo!!! Thanks for 3rd place!! That’s really cool. Much appreciated!
+2Sooo … how the hell do you fly this?
+2@OrderlyHippo It could be wonky at slow speeds, but a very specific reason: Sometimes the slats (leading-edge flaps) would deploy asymmetrically, resulting in weird, adverse flight characteristics, like auto-rolling or rolling and bumping in the wrong direction, especially at high angle of attack maneuvers. When the Blue Angels flew the Skyhawk, they locked the slats at the fully retracted position in order to lower the risk of losing control of the airplane.
+2I love the concept and many things about the design. It’s very well-built and extremely pretty.
But there’s one huge flaw that makes it less-than-believable: The props are directly above the wings. That means: when they rotate up for vertical takeoff, they couldn’t never produce any vertical lift in reality, as the prop only pushes against the wing instead of pushing away from the ground. Maybe that’s something that could be addressed by using four (smaller) engines, two in front and two behind the wings?
+2@SyntheticL Well, it’s still June 12 here in Germany … sooo … ;-)
+2Absolutely beautiful! Flies well too. Only minor criticisms I have: 1) the tailplane is missing the taileron function, i.e. it only moves with pitch input, but not with roll.
+22) the AMRAAMS have blue („inert/practice“) markings while the AIM-9s have the yellow „live warhead“ marking - but that is reall just purely cosmetic nitpicking. ;-)
Civilian aircraft with two machine guns? Also: What’s wrong with calling it an Ornithopter? Anyway, nice build, sleek looks!
+2One more question about the rules: Does a default wing that’s partly covered by a piece of fuselage constitute a custom wing? Meaning: Will this disqualify my build?
+2Deer Sir, I adore your builds! This is yet another example of a near-perfect simple plane. I’m also a great fan of the numerous alternate loadouts.
One little thing had me wondering while maneuvering: It seems like the main engines might be a wee bit underpowered. I realize that a fully loaded Foxtrott Super Hornet is not gonna go supersonic at sea level with three drop tanks. However, even when the entire combat load (default version) is jettisoned, it takes the plane a significant while to get to, and then above Mach 1 at, say, 20,000 ft. Is this intentional or would you care to revise the thrust in order to give it a little more oomph?
Again: not a major point of criticism, just nitpicking. ;-)
Cheers
+2Damn, that’s one sexy bomb!
+2@BRAZUCA Says in the description: „Deadline: May 15.“
+2Damn, missed the deadline by roughly 2 hrs. My kid kept me busy at night when I wanted to be building. Can I still upload? I’m fine with being outside the competition . Just finished my thing anyway ;-)
+2@MikeWallace Ha! Best comeback ever!
+2@HarunaHeavyIndustries Got it, thanks for clarifying!
+2@jamesPLANESii Thing is, the original Gazelle (SA-340) actually had a conventional tail rotor, it was just set up differently than portrayed here. Didn’t have a v-stab, which made it look … interesting.
+2Yoke AND stick. Cause you just never know … ;-)
+2@ValkyrieXB71 Well, not really „any fighter“. More like a very specific type of fighter which narrows down the creative choices significantly. There generally is no need to go that fast except for the „getting there quick“ part of intercepting long-range bombers. Very fast fighters generally don’t handle well. Be that as it may, what do you mean by „nose radar antenna“? Does that mean that the
+2radar must be visible/accessible?
It accelerates like it’s shot from a catapult and then stops dead at around 500 mph. After that, it becomes unflyable due to weird yaw behavior. This needs more work.
+2@MrAdhmGamer Wow, then you really haven’t seen much. Not to say that this is a bad build or anything. But it’s hardly an accurate replica either - as stated by the author, it’s a „remake“. There are lots of other builds that are „better F-4s“ (meaning replicas) on here that are less hard on your potato. ;-)
+2@TheNightmareCompany Got it. But that was basically my question: is there any real aircraft in existence that could fulfill the criteria of this contest?
+2Damn, that’s a cool challenge! I’ll der give it a go.
+2A replica of what exactly? Is there something like this IRL? Seriously curious here, because that would be awesome! @TheNightmareCompany
+2You realize that you actually built a MiG-29 and that a real-life Su-34 is an entirely different animal?
+2@MRpingouin Thanks, man! Although I’d probably say: what this deserves more of is work 😉 But really glad you like it already!
+2@MarbleXLazuli @Amazingaviator12 @Falkenwut Thanks so much for spotlighting this, you guys!! Also thanks for all the upvotes so far!
+2@Pnicks15 Well, they didn’t. Boeing made 3 prototypes and tried to sell it to the USAAF and Navy, but they didn’t end up acquiring it, even though it had quite impressive capabilities.
+2