However the aircraft still shares more with the F-35 than the ATD-X... @DankDorito
I nitpick sometimes, so if I do don't worry about it. Please just don't.
--> Or maybe I'm jealous as it seems, due to my inactivity, I am dead to the simple planes community T_T
Atlantian Automatic cannons are usually chambered for pre existing ammunition if there is already a precedent. It's cheaper, it's also much cheaper to not design complex chain guns. So what did B&K resolve to complete? A modernized gas powered 37mm anti aircraft gun would be it's cannon armament. It's development cost was cut significantly and utilized prexisting equipment and technology and was quickly adopted for service. The same automatic cannon was redesigned to fire 37mm x 350mm ammunition for the Atlantian ground forces over a decade later.
--> One may complain the 37mm is simply too big for a fighter to handle, but recall the rate of fire difference. The other automatic chainguns should have similar recoil. Also recall it's given the space between the air intakes and fuselage of the Project 33.
Hey Lemoose. I pitched your F-15 against my Project 33-2U and... Well out of 6 fights, you lost 5 and the only "loss" by the Project 33-2U was due to the AI managing to put the aircraft into a flat spin. Which is surprising as it passed it's maneuvering tests with flying colours, in which I completely failed to put it into a flat spin of any kind.
But that's off topic,
For some reason it seems the AI can't hold a lock. Is there something wrong?
Okay, here is something i do not understand. A defective turd that can barely fly gets three upvotes, but an IFV that I make with a working suspension, automatic cannon, gun elevation + depression etc, gets one.
Explain this concept to me, please!
@Hyperloop My Ipad can't even handle ~200 parts... I somehow managed to download it and stripped it down. Eventually you will see a plane based on this one, but I'm not sure if you will be able to recognize it... I've chopped off the nose entirely for a total reconstruction, I've started a reconstruction of the tail, started a reconstruction of the fuselage, and admittedly I might use only your construction techniques for this planned airplane. Yours was very innovative for me.
But I was thinking... Maybe you could make a nice little jet for me, sort of like this, but with a blended wing body... Maybe... Just maybe... It is just a silly fantasy plane from elementary school, but I have tried many times to make it work...
@Hyperloop I have an idea... Make the central body shorter, reduce the height (on the back) of the cockpit, lengthen the nose, chop off the horizontal stabilizers and move the wings back and increase their size. Then make the engines more rounded... And so begins the Type 77A project :D
Yes, I will try it, but I'm not sure if my Ipad can actually run it. Considering it couldn't even upload my Type 18 IFV in one piece >.>
Anyway~ hopefully it will work, but dreams might only stay dreams lol
I have this thing for really tightly built aircraft...
Missing parts from the Type 18 hull uploaded:
-Track guards (fore and rear)
-Hull Side stand off plate
-Manned Turret
-Hull roof over turret mount
-Amphibious drive
Type 18 Hull:
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/66Fqt4/Type-18-IFV
Yes! I finally downsized it enough for upload! I'll upload the rest of it's build in the next upload. Deck part 1, frontal track guard, track guard rear, manned turret, and side screens.
@FlOu Can you please help me with my Type 18 IFV? The right side of the suspension broke itself somehow and I don't want to re-assemble the entire thing again.
Hey SR. I know you're a great user at this game, so I ponder the possibility of you fixing a problem involving the engine of one of the Type 27C concept updates.
The link is here:
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/A6eVMP/Type-27C-Concept-Minor-Update
You see, it works fine until you try to pull a turn. Then the engine proceeds to slice apart the entire aircraft. In the meantime I must desperately find a way to increase the roll rate :P
If possible, would you kindly give it a WW2 era cockpit thing for good measure?
Well, good thing I never posted my revamp to your Ki 84 did I (mine would be an embarrassment)? Hint, I tore half the plane apart and it flew better.
But of course, it was aesthetically better than anything else I've ever made so I don't think I should talk.
@KurtTank I am so sorry, it seems I missed the upvote button, in the sense that I did not click on it while I intended to. This is just a mistake, please forgive such
@Thefalloutplayr That's not the thing I'm talking about mein bekannter, I speak of the wings.
No I'm not German and certainly can't speak/write it fluently. I just stick it in for... Diversity?
I'm sorry "Glaceon" but how much do you think the Chinese army copies? I mean aside from the QBZ bullpup assault rifle, the "looks like a frankenstein T-72 Ural" Type 90-II and the "resembles the Type 90-II" Type 99, the J-8 which is some sort of spliced Mig-21, the domestic DF-21, the J-20, and a huge host of other weapons that I (currently) cannot go into detail over. Tell me again what the weapons are copies of? Because I could claim the Panther is then a T-34 76 copy. Because mate, your proposition is at best, ludicrous. That China "cannot" design it's own weapons. Not like the J-20 is original right? Where's that fictional airplane it's based on? Oh wait a second. THAT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST. Grow a brain son. Grow a brain. If you have ANY intelligence at ALL whatsoever you will give up now and walk away.
"Can't create anything original"
Haha, dream on r*tard.
@Glaceon
@TheLatentImage I sort of whupped his rear here. Claiming China can't create anything original. By that same concept the FT17 is "original" and everything else that came after it are not.
But then, by the conventional definition, Chinese tanks follow their own evolution. Russian inspired hull with the exact same weaknesses (literally) and western turrets. What could possibly go wrong? And then the Type 99; a freaking turbine engine that we never needed.
@EternalDarkness I drew one for fun one day... And then that started a host of fantasies resulting in the "Type 77E Tenshi" which was a flying cranked arrow wing with some sort of F-22/Mig nose thing. Of course, the fact you couldn't fit engines into a narrow wing without adding bulges clearly didn't occur to me at the time. Don't mind me though, still trying to make my fantasies work... I think the Type 77 concept has gone... Above and beyond... Regular time consuming failures...
@Glaceon No. Seriously. The Mark 1 was a armored box with a gun. The FT 17 has a turret, engine in the rear, and a conventional layout still used (loosely)
@EternalDarkness Kinda like a Mig/F-22 nose, nice and smooth, long. A length width ratio of perhaps 4-1 at it's peak. A pair of engines with a sort of "mini manta" tail inbetween. Air intakes flush with the wings, area ruling, with really thin outer wings for speed performance.
@Glaceon
M1 Abrams is not "original" because it is an evolution of the MBT-70
Unless the Type 99 is original because it is an evolution of molding together western tech and Russian hulls.
This here plane is a physical "rip off" of Wangxidefei's aircraft for an example. Or is it? How much did I take? I took the center of the aircraft. And stopped there.
By that concept, the Leopard 2 isn't original, because it passively resembles the MBT-70 in concept.
Hey mates, would someone kindly fix up the wings? They're a bit... Floppy and seem to be causing problems.
However the aircraft still shares more with the F-35 than the ATD-X... @DankDorito
I nitpick sometimes, so if I do don't worry about it. Please just don't.
--> Or maybe I'm jealous as it seems, due to my inactivity, I am dead to the simple planes community T_T
This is really old nonsense... @Jackhammer312
So why is it "based on" the ATD-X if it shares more with the F-35 and the Mig 29?
Atlantian Automatic cannons are usually chambered for pre existing ammunition if there is already a precedent. It's cheaper, it's also much cheaper to not design complex chain guns. So what did B&K resolve to complete? A modernized gas powered 37mm anti aircraft gun would be it's cannon armament. It's development cost was cut significantly and utilized prexisting equipment and technology and was quickly adopted for service. The same automatic cannon was redesigned to fire 37mm x 350mm ammunition for the Atlantian ground forces over a decade later.
--> One may complain the 37mm is simply too big for a fighter to handle, but recall the rate of fire difference. The other automatic chainguns should have similar recoil. Also recall it's given the space between the air intakes and fuselage of the Project 33.
Are you sure it is an ATD-X?
Hey Lemoose. I pitched your F-15 against my Project 33-2U and... Well out of 6 fights, you lost 5 and the only "loss" by the Project 33-2U was due to the AI managing to put the aircraft into a flat spin. Which is surprising as it passed it's maneuvering tests with flying colours, in which I completely failed to put it into a flat spin of any kind.
But that's off topic,
For some reason it seems the AI can't hold a lock. Is there something wrong?
This version is behind the current model I have not yet posted. Various inferior categories, mostly range, visual appeal, armament, etc.
@BogdanX It shouldn't be too hard. You can play around with where you put the wings and get results simply from such a minor factor.
Can't and won't. Rather play WOT or something @TemDesBur
I said that wrong... I meant past tense. It didn't take me long to enter and leave. @TemDesBur
Yes I do; why? @TemDesBur
Definitely a Ki-43 I. Note the lack of mass, dual blade propeller and light armament as opposed to the Ki 43 II and or the Ki 43 III
Personally, I don't particularly like the Ki 43's, though I prefer the Ki 43 III the most out of them all, for the look of the power plant. @TemDesBur
Wunderbär!
I think that's how you say it...
Anyway how do you bring up the landing gear?
Oh I forgot you can hit the gear key for the new homemade landing gear...
Okay, here is something i do not understand. A defective turd that can barely fly gets three upvotes, but an IFV that I make with a working suspension, automatic cannon, gun elevation + depression etc, gets one.
Explain this concept to me, please!
Help?
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/tgb2pt/Help
@FrogmasterAereonautics I think it's actually that the rear of it extends too far...
Nose seems a bit too big... But I like really tightly built looks :P
@Hyperloop My Ipad can't even handle ~200 parts... I somehow managed to download it and stripped it down. Eventually you will see a plane based on this one, but I'm not sure if you will be able to recognize it... I've chopped off the nose entirely for a total reconstruction, I've started a reconstruction of the tail, started a reconstruction of the fuselage, and admittedly I might use only your construction techniques for this planned airplane. Yours was very innovative for me.
But I was thinking... Maybe you could make a nice little jet for me, sort of like this, but with a blended wing body... Maybe... Just maybe... It is just a silly fantasy plane from elementary school, but I have tried many times to make it work...
@Hyperloop I have an idea... Make the central body shorter, reduce the height (on the back) of the cockpit, lengthen the nose, chop off the horizontal stabilizers and move the wings back and increase their size. Then make the engines more rounded... And so begins the Type 77A project :D
Yes, I will try it, but I'm not sure if my Ipad can actually run it. Considering it couldn't even upload my Type 18 IFV in one piece >.>
Anyway~ hopefully it will work, but dreams might only stay dreams lol
I have this thing for really tightly built aircraft...
I will see if I can actually upload this as a singular piece. But it doesn't seem to be working at all.
No problem. I fixed it by completely rebuilding the entire thing @FlOu
@NovaTopaz
Missing parts from the Type 18 hull uploaded:
-Track guards (fore and rear)
-Hull Side stand off plate
-Manned Turret
-Hull roof over turret mount
-Amphibious drive
Type 18 Hull:
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/66Fqt4/Type-18-IFV
Yes! I finally downsized it enough for upload! I'll upload the rest of it's build in the next upload. Deck part 1, frontal track guard, track guard rear, manned turret, and side screens.
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/67a6jr/Type-18-IFV
@FlOu Can you please help me with my Type 18 IFV? The right side of the suspension broke itself somehow and I don't want to re-assemble the entire thing again.
Hey SR. I know you're a great user at this game, so I ponder the possibility of you fixing a problem involving the engine of one of the Type 27C concept updates.
The link is here:
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/A6eVMP/Type-27C-Concept-Minor-Update
You see, it works fine until you try to pull a turn. Then the engine proceeds to slice apart the entire aircraft. In the meantime I must desperately find a way to increase the roll rate :P
If possible, would you kindly give it a WW2 era cockpit thing for good measure?
Well, good thing I never posted my revamp to your Ki 84 did I (mine would be an embarrassment)? Hint, I tore half the plane apart and it flew better.
But of course, it was aesthetically better than anything else I've ever made so I don't think I should talk.
@KurtTank I am so sorry, it seems I missed the upvote button, in the sense that I did not click on it while I intended to. This is just a mistake, please forgive such
@Thefalloutplayr That's not the thing I'm talking about mein bekannter, I speak of the wings.
No I'm not German and certainly can't speak/write it fluently. I just stick it in for... Diversity?
O_O
just a suggestion; don't use fuselage for skinning the wing, I think that the "structural" wing thing works better if you want to keep handling
@SimpleTechAndResearch I tried to umm... "resolve" the problem in the Type 3J S... But stuck on enough VTOL engines the same thing happened.
Oh my... Did I really have such a fanatical adherence to a p/w of 3.6?
@SimpleTechAndResearch While you're here. Do you agree that I probably should have used smaller engines on this plane? It kinda has a p/w of 3.6+...
@SimpleTechAndResearch Did I go over the line? My apologies.
I'm sorry "Glaceon" but how much do you think the Chinese army copies? I mean aside from the QBZ bullpup assault rifle, the "looks like a frankenstein T-72 Ural" Type 90-II and the "resembles the Type 90-II" Type 99, the J-8 which is some sort of spliced Mig-21, the domestic DF-21, the J-20, and a huge host of other weapons that I (currently) cannot go into detail over. Tell me again what the weapons are copies of? Because I could claim the Panther is then a T-34 76 copy. Because mate, your proposition is at best, ludicrous. That China "cannot" design it's own weapons. Not like the J-20 is original right? Where's that fictional airplane it's based on? Oh wait a second. THAT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST. Grow a brain son. Grow a brain. If you have ANY intelligence at ALL whatsoever you will give up now and walk away.
"Can't create anything original"
Haha, dream on r*tard.
@Glaceon
Right. You've got two options:
Either accept the Type 99 is a pure chinese tank
Or
That the FT17 is the only original "tank" of the world.
Otherwise, I'm going to report you for racism again.
@Glaceon
@TheLatentImage I sort of whupped his rear here. Claiming China can't create anything original. By that same concept the FT17 is "original" and everything else that came after it are not.
But then, by the conventional definition, Chinese tanks follow their own evolution. Russian inspired hull with the exact same weaknesses (literally) and western turrets. What could possibly go wrong? And then the Type 99; a freaking turbine engine that we never needed.
@EternalDarkness I drew one for fun one day... And then that started a host of fantasies resulting in the "Type 77E Tenshi" which was a flying cranked arrow wing with some sort of F-22/Mig nose thing. Of course, the fact you couldn't fit engines into a narrow wing without adding bulges clearly didn't occur to me at the time. Don't mind me though, still trying to make my fantasies work... I think the Type 77 concept has gone... Above and beyond... Regular time consuming failures...
@Glaceon No. Seriously. The Mark 1 was a armored box with a gun. The FT 17 has a turret, engine in the rear, and a conventional layout still used (loosely)
@EternalDarkness Kinda like a Mig/F-22 nose, nice and smooth, long. A length width ratio of perhaps 4-1 at it's peak. A pair of engines with a sort of "mini manta" tail inbetween. Air intakes flush with the wings, area ruling, with really thin outer wings for speed performance.
@Glaceon Yes. If you want to be more lax, the FT17 is the worlds first "true" tank
@Glaceon
M1 Abrams is not "original" because it is an evolution of the MBT-70
Unless the Type 99 is original because it is an evolution of molding together western tech and Russian hulls.
@Glaceon
https://www.google.ca/search?q=make+definition&oq=make+definition&aqs=chrome..69i57.4902j0j1&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on
https://www.google.ca/search?q=make+definition&oq=make+definition&aqs=chrome..69i57.4902j0j1&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#safe=strict&q=create+definition
Form something vs Bring it into existence. By that concept NOTHING we have made has been "created" because it ALREADY existed.
@EternalDarkness I was just wondering, would you like to take a shot at a flying cranked arrow with a nose piece?
@Glaceon You cannot define China's military. Again, what is your criteria for original.
@Glaceon define original.
This here plane is a physical "rip off" of Wangxidefei's aircraft for an example. Or is it? How much did I take? I took the center of the aircraft. And stopped there.
By that concept, the Leopard 2 isn't original, because it passively resembles the MBT-70 in concept.
@EternalDarkness Very sorry for the massive waste of space.
@Glaceon
1 Shut up. This is over.
2 Shut up racist.
3 Learn basic physics.
4 Use your one functioning brain cell
Until I read the description I thought it was a trainer...