Very nice work overall. Especially the landing gear is top-notch! Couple things that I thought were „missing“: in your model, the leading-edge slats move with the trailing-edge while in reality, they are operated only by gravity and air pressure, meaning they drop automatically when the airspeed is low enough (independently from the flaps). Also, the Skyhawks has wing spoilers extending upward from the wings that help with further reducing airspeed in addition to the air brakes in the fuselage.
Hm ... while it's true that the actual 'Doc' has most of its turrets removed, it also doesn't have any bombs in the bay as this specimen never saw any combat and was first converted to a radar calibration plane in 1951 and later used as a ballistic missile target by the Navy after its retirement from the Air Force in 1956. So if you wanted this to be 'realistic' ... just sayin. ;-)
I gotta be honest, as much as I enjoy your challenges, your original fixed wing builds are kind of „hit-or-miss“ for me, but your helos are consistently cool and well made, all while keeping it simple. Really enjoying these!!
Goodness gracious! Great balls of fire! This has to be the best A-model Tomcat yet, right alongside ReinMcDeer‘s builds for the B and D models. Much respect for getting it right!
One tiny little detail: The markings on the AIM-54s are a little off. For „hot“ missiles on U.S. jets it’s always yellow stripe(s) in the front for the warhead and reddish brown in the back for the rocket motor. Same for every missile, basically. Inert missiles for training are either painted blue or have blue markings.
What the heck!? I literally just checked the Fictional GA Challenge the minute this was uploaded and it instantly blew me away. What a beauty!! Gonna have some fun taking her for a spin now …
@TheCommentaryGuy I'm neither a F-14 (sexy plane, but not the only one) or Top Gun fanboy (I think both films mostly live off nostalgia, although TGM does have some cool flying scenes) so I feel relatively impartial here ... still, this design proposal shows exactly, why it wasn't selected for development and testing: it's rough, bulky and the low-wing VG configuration seems like it would cause more harm than good in terms of stability. There are many good reasons why the F-14 was selected.
And let's be real, everything forward of the intakes looks very much like a Tomcat anyway. ;-) Still very cool to see this made in SP!
Very pretty model with some inaccuracies (BogdanX mentioned the split tailplane). Also, the flaps seem to work in reverse since you actually included wing parts in the moving fuselage parts. This doesn’t work in SP. Either use tiny (hidden) wings with regular control surfaces as flaps or add moving wing parts front of the CoL. Otherwise it won’t work. This way, flaps come down, plane wants to descend instead of increasing lift. Not how it works IRL. Having the leading edge flaps work separately by using trim also seems like an odd choice, since they usually either are automatic or work in conjunction with the trailing edge flaps (not sure which is the case for the F-104).
@Robomo00119 Why stop making an F-86 replica half way and make a semi-fictional one with a confusing variant nomenclature and an even more confusing fictional back story? I don’t quite get the approach.
@FlyingBathtub I share these concerns. Also: editing of guns (cannons) is essential to get realistic rates of fire and calibers. The 600 rpm takakakaka of the default wing gun ain't gonna cut it. Most post-WW2 aircraft machine guns and cannons had rates of fire around 1,000 rpm already. A few exceptions existed, of course (Soviet NR 37, etc), but those were large caliber aircraft cannons. So again, I believe XML modding cannons is essential for this challenge.
@MrOofington … well, sorry I misread a joke. Then again, it didn’t exactly say „joke“ in the headline. Kinda hard to tell these days when everyone‘s being sarcastic all the time.
@MartinByrde Yeah, SP is tricky that way. It’s sometimes enough to save your build, go for a test flight and then upload it without saving it again. Bugs will happen, some are hard to control, so don’t sweat it. Everyone understands. ;-)
@MartinByrde It really makes me happy to see this becoming so successful so quickly. Goes to show that true effort is indeed rewarded and the SP spirit is still alive and kicking.
Brilliant and impressive work! To be honest: I can’t get most of my builds to fly this smoothly. Cool design as well. I think, we’ll be seeing a lot more from you. I, for one, am looking forward to that!
@WinsWings No problem. I thought I‘d mention it before it goes unnoticed. But yeah, glitches can truly be weird in SP. I’m having the same issues on one of my older builds and they occur each time I change something and save the build. Guess we’ll just have to live with that. :-)
Thanks for all the updoots! I realize a MiG-21 ain’t anything special in SP terms but I feel like there aren’t a lot of super simple ones that actually look the part. So that’s what I went for.
@CharlesDeGaulle I see what you mean, although my perspective is limited in this regard, since I’ve never played DCS (or flown a fast jet IRL, for that matter). I also noticed the „bobbing“ when pulling lots of Gs, which probably shouldn’t occur in a fly-by-wire jet like the Mirage 2000. However, I don’t find this to be particularly bad, even on mobile controls. I just pull back less hard on the stick and it turns just fine. Anyway, I do see your point. For me, personally, flight performance is good enough.
Hey there! Just a friendly heads-up as you seem to be new: If you download other people’s creations and re-upload them, it’s always nice to give the original creator some credit, even if you make some changes to the build. They will appreciate it. ;-)
Wait, there are ‚possibilities‘ with the control base? I am checking this out!
@ACGspOfficial No, I'll just block you instead. What a stupid thing to say.
@AgDynamics You said it best.
Very nice work overall. Especially the landing gear is top-notch! Couple things that I thought were „missing“: in your model, the leading-edge slats move with the trailing-edge while in reality, they are operated only by gravity and air pressure, meaning they drop automatically when the airspeed is low enough (independently from the flaps). Also, the Skyhawks has wing spoilers extending upward from the wings that help with further reducing airspeed in addition to the air brakes in the fuselage.
Hm ... while it's true that the actual 'Doc' has most of its turrets removed, it also doesn't have any bombs in the bay as this specimen never saw any combat and was first converted to a radar calibration plane in 1951 and later used as a ballistic missile target by the Navy after its retirement from the Air Force in 1956. So if you wanted this to be 'realistic' ... just sayin. ;-)
Marvelous build! Now all I need to learn is how to actually slow that thing down for landing. Any advice? 😉
T
T!
Mhm, one for the finer palates… 😉 T, sir, T indeed!
Legacy Hornet with JSOW and SLAM-ER (which are AGM-84H, by the way, not AGM-88) ? I wonder which nation can pull that off … Finland maybe?
It’s completely safe as long as … hold on …
.
..
… ok, we’re fucked. Sorry bout that.
... as opposed to all the less detailed 3D elephants on this site ...
@SimpleVienne Calm down, some of us have actual jobs and a life outside of SP
I gotta be honest, as much as I enjoy your challenges, your original fixed wing builds are kind of „hit-or-miss“ for me, but your helos are consistently cool and well made, all while keeping it simple. Really enjoying these!!
@LinusTouchTips No worries, I was just nitpicking since the build is so damn good! ;-)
Goodness gracious! Great balls of fire! This has to be the best A-model Tomcat yet, right alongside ReinMcDeer‘s builds for the B and D models. Much respect for getting it right!
One tiny little detail: The markings on the AIM-54s are a little off. For „hot“ missiles on U.S. jets it’s always yellow stripe(s) in the front for the warhead and reddish brown in the back for the rocket motor. Same for every missile, basically. Inert missiles for training are either painted blue or have blue markings.
@LinusTouchTips … and succeeded big time. First one in SP to get them 100% accurate, as far as I know!
What the heck!? I literally just checked the Fictional GA Challenge the minute this was uploaded and it instantly blew me away. What a beauty!! Gonna have some fun taking her for a spin now …
@TheCommentaryGuy I'm neither a F-14 (sexy plane, but not the only one) or Top Gun fanboy (I think both films mostly live off nostalgia, although TGM does have some cool flying scenes) so I feel relatively impartial here ... still, this design proposal shows exactly, why it wasn't selected for development and testing: it's rough, bulky and the low-wing VG configuration seems like it would cause more harm than good in terms of stability. There are many good reasons why the F-14 was selected.
And let's be real, everything forward of the intakes looks very much like a Tomcat anyway. ;-) Still very cool to see this made in SP!
T
@DarDragon Who are the other two?
Very pretty and accurate build but … how in the world do you not crash this thing when trying to land?? It’s so … agile. 😵💫
Absolutely beautiful! It’s the perfect level of detail and realism to go with and SP build. You truly ACEd it (again)!
T
Very pretty model with some inaccuracies (BogdanX mentioned the split tailplane). Also, the flaps seem to work in reverse since you actually included wing parts in the moving fuselage parts. This doesn’t work in SP. Either use tiny (hidden) wings with regular control surfaces as flaps or add moving wing parts front of the CoL. Otherwise it won’t work. This way, flaps come down, plane wants to descend instead of increasing lift. Not how it works IRL. Having the leading edge flaps work separately by using trim also seems like an odd choice, since they usually either are automatic or work in conjunction with the trailing edge flaps (not sure which is the case for the F-104).
@Robomo00119 fair enough. I’ll keep my eye out for more. ;-)
@Robomo00119 Why stop making an F-86 replica half way and make a semi-fictional one with a confusing variant nomenclature and an even more confusing fictional back story? I don’t quite get the approach.
@FlyingBathtub I share these concerns. Also: editing of guns (cannons) is essential to get realistic rates of fire and calibers. The 600 rpm takakakaka of the default wing gun ain't gonna cut it. Most post-WW2 aircraft machine guns and cannons had rates of fire around 1,000 rpm already. A few exceptions existed, of course (Soviet NR 37, etc), but those were large caliber aircraft cannons. So again, I believe XML modding cannons is essential for this challenge.
@MrOofington … well, sorry I misread a joke. Then again, it didn’t exactly say „joke“ in the headline. Kinda hard to tell these days when everyone‘s being sarcastic all the time.
Let’s all calm down now.
Classic 1950s WWII jet bomber 🥸
Sooo ... is "just a plane" gonna land sometime soon? In any case: T!
T
@AdmiralGelvain My guess is: when the challenge has ended (post 30 Jan.).
@MartinByrde Yeah, SP is tricky that way. It’s sometimes enough to save your build, go for a test flight and then upload it without saving it again. Bugs will happen, some are hard to control, so don’t sweat it. Everyone understands. ;-)
@MartinByrde It really makes me happy to see this becoming so successful so quickly. Goes to show that true effort is indeed rewarded and the SP spirit is still alive and kicking.
Brilliant and impressive work! To be honest: I can’t get most of my builds to fly this smoothly. Cool design as well. I think, we’ll be seeing a lot more from you. I, for one, am looking forward to that!
Cheers
@WinsWings No problem. I thought I‘d mention it before it goes unnoticed. But yeah, glitches can truly be weird in SP. I’m having the same issues on one of my older builds and they occur each time I change something and save the build. Guess we’ll just have to live with that. :-)
Thanks for all the updoots! I realize a MiG-21 ain’t anything special in SP terms but I feel like there aren’t a lot of super simple ones that actually look the part. So that’s what I went for.
The hell, am I missing a huge in-joke here?
@CharlesDeGaulle I see what you mean, although my perspective is limited in this regard, since I’ve never played DCS (or flown a fast jet IRL, for that matter). I also noticed the „bobbing“ when pulling lots of Gs, which probably shouldn’t occur in a fly-by-wire jet like the Mirage 2000. However, I don’t find this to be particularly bad, even on mobile controls. I just pull back less hard on the stick and it turns just fine. Anyway, I do see your point. For me, personally, flight performance is good enough.
@CharlesDeGaulle Am I missing something? Could you elaborate on what you feel makes this „bad flying“?
@jamesPLANESii My thoughts exactly.
@DEADSHOT15 Thanks for trying, mate. Sadly, you can only spotlight users who have less points than yourself. :-/. But I do appreciate your intention!
Hey there! Just a friendly heads-up as you seem to be new: If you download other people’s creations and re-upload them, it’s always nice to give the original creator some credit, even if you make some changes to the build. They will appreciate it. ;-)
Other than that: welcome to the SP community!
Love the concept. Great public service!
@FirstFish83828 Whoop whoop! Thanks, friend!
@Inuyasha8215 Thanks, mate!
@SyntheticL Thanks a bunch!
Now, this is how 25 Parts is DONE! Absolutely beautiful.
T