I don't know what this has to do with single engine planes, but it looks like me like a typical case of the center of gravity being too far back. Try adding some weight to the nose, or moving the wings back a little.
I'm playing on a mobile phone. So I really can't switch until SimplaPlanes2 is available for Android. Even if I had a good gaming PC at home, I wouldn't know if I would want to actively withdraw to a computer room or game corner just to make my planes. If I wanted that, I could just as well go build a balsawood model airplane in my garage.
A bit old got a 1970's aircraft. Looks more like a late 1930's experiment to me, may be something Argentina or Paraguay could have tried to market in the early 1950's
@WinsWings I.remember seeing an airplane like this, -I believe it was a DHC Otter in a.museum in Brussels ages ago. This was a plane the 1957 expedition took to Antarctica to do some flying around, mostly picking up and dropping off scientists. I thought your plane looked the part, so I gave it a paint job that looked like the one I had in my memory. Glad you like it.
@LonelySea22 I actually tried 'full' wing warping by giving every segment of the wing its own rotator and move it 2 degrees up or down. Unfortunately I ran into too many problems with stability and ended up with wing flapping instead. This was the best doable solution.
But yea, I tried to incorporate as many historically accurate details as possible. So the wings move as a whole and the steering column is a prewar French 'Cloche' type
Took a little getting used to flaps and trim being on the wrong hand, but in the end, the movable wing nose did it for me. This aircraft is a showcase of what Simpleplanes really can do
I saw you changed the 'brakeTorque' on the wheels from 50 to 5. Does that really help keeping the plane from rolling over when braking? Or did you use some other design trick like placing the wheels way forward of tht center of gravity?
Really? I had a test flight with that plane he sent me. There were so many beginners errors in it that I cannot believe it was anything but a clumsy attempt at grabbing some likes. In retrospect, now I know for sure he just reposted something without even bothering to make a final test flight.
@Moonhead2131 I'm halfway building the fuselage. My main problem is that I translated 'simple' as 96 parts or less so it can be used as AI background traffic
I have to bow out on this one. My 5th Gen High Manoeuverability Technology Demonstrator ran into some problems.... Like .... Not flying and mistaking high Manoeuverability for chronic spinning out of control. May be one day I can get it fixed. Not on this challenge though.
It took me 1/2 an hour to rearrange the input and rotor settings to my liking. But then, the helicopter flew like a dream, even without the gyro. Congratulations
@WinsWings yea, he's a charmer. That's why I can't deny him to have his own plane, or car I stead of just looking over my shoulder when I am flying SimplePlanes
Did I see this right? Your engine is a rotator block with four wings attached to it? Kudos ... I claim the 50th upvote for this thing. Though to be sure, you deserved that upvote alone for using shock absorbers in your landing gear already.
@WinsWings I don't think a turboprop would be necessary, may be later for a modernized kitbashed bushplane, but for now the radial engine has up to 2000 HP power. You rated yours at 1200. So you still have some spare. Also a floatplane has the whole ocean for a runway, so it can pack some extra weight.
Ps, if you want to talk things through, hit me up on the Discord server. My handle is the same as here: sockdragger
@AircraftLover754 I haven't flown around with your helicopter enough to find anything I would fix immediately. But from the top of my head: the thing has trouble gaining altitude, so increase tht power of the wingtip jets, use XML editor to kill the drag of the rotor blades, both the actual wings and the fuselage sleeves and finally, consider adding a wing control surface to add as a rotor blade tilt mechanism. May be set it to the VTOL slider...
@WinsWings I know it closed like two years ago, but you got another entry just last week, and I bet you will still get more. So I decided: Well, why not.
Update: the F8F was indeed posted 2 years ago, but it showed up in my jet stream just last week.
Looks quite spiffy for less than 100 parts and looks pretty detailed. Also I love how you get a STOL plane that takes off at 36 mph without even thinking of flaps, just using the lift of the wing.
Congratulations on a nice little flyer. I would give it a sincere up vote if you had spent five more minutes coloring the plane. Just painting all the struts silver and the wings red or blue makes a nice upgrade.
@V likewise. It took me two days of trial and error just to get my first plane not to crash on every landing. And after all the mods, it just looked atrocious.
The P.stands for Project. According to Lippish's own biography, this was a design study for a dour-engined bomber or transporter he and his team made for the 'Department L' at Messerschmitt.... Mostly to keep themselves busy while the development of the Me.163 was entering a slow phase.
Love tht little details. Two ideas for improvements though 1) Bigger control surfaces for better handling, 2) Longer nose wheel strut so you can make the propeller bigger too (120 in. At least) Speed will improve at least by half.
I wouldn't upvote an aircraft that has neither flaps nor air brakes, but this thing has so many other cool features I don't mind having to land at 399 mph, even if I still crash half of the time. Upvote sent.
I don't know what this has to do with single engine planes, but it looks like me like a typical case of the center of gravity being too far back. Try adding some weight to the nose, or moving the wings back a little.
+4I'm playing on a mobile phone. So I really can't switch until SimplaPlanes2 is available for Android. Even if I had a good gaming PC at home, I wouldn't know if I would want to actively withdraw to a computer room or game corner just to make my planes. If I wanted that, I could just as well go build a balsawood model airplane in my garage.
+3A bit old got a 1970's aircraft. Looks more like a late 1930's experiment to me, may be something Argentina or Paraguay could have tried to market in the early 1950's
+3@WinsWings I.remember seeing an airplane like this, -I believe it was a DHC Otter in a.museum in Brussels ages ago. This was a plane the 1957 expedition took to Antarctica to do some flying around, mostly picking up and dropping off scientists. I thought your plane looked the part, so I gave it a paint job that looked like the one I had in my memory. Glad you like it.
+3@LonelySea22 I actually tried 'full' wing warping by giving every segment of the wing its own rotator and move it 2 degrees up or down. Unfortunately I ran into too many problems with stability and ended up with wing flapping instead. This was the best doable solution.
But yea, I tried to incorporate as many historically accurate details as possible. So the wings move as a whole and the steering column is a prewar French 'Cloche' type
+3Took a little getting used to flaps and trim being on the wrong hand, but in the end, the movable wing nose did it for me. This aircraft is a showcase of what Simpleplanes really can do
+3You know... If you change the form of the wings I to a delta and make the tailplane a little slimmer, you could have a quite passable F4 Phantom...
+3I saw you changed the 'brakeTorque' on the wheels from 50 to 5. Does that really help keeping the plane from rolling over when braking? Or did you use some other design trick like placing the wheels way forward of tht center of gravity?
+2Really? I had a test flight with that plane he sent me. There were so many beginners errors in it that I cannot believe it was anything but a clumsy attempt at grabbing some likes. In retrospect, now I know for sure he just reposted something without even bothering to make a final test flight.
+2Congratulations. You've come quite a way in one month. Curious on what you will build a year from now.
+2Looks like the French Sud-Est 4500 Vautour, only a lot chubbier
+290% done. Just some windows and I'll post my 1930's flying boat airliner tomorrow
.... Done
+2@Moonhead2131 I'm halfway building the fuselage. My main problem is that I translated 'simple' as 96 parts or less so it can be used as AI background traffic
+2I have to bow out on this one. My 5th Gen High Manoeuverability Technology Demonstrator ran into some problems.... Like .... Not flying and mistaking high Manoeuverability for chronic spinning out of control. May be one day I can get it fixed. Not on this challenge though.
+2It took me 1/2 an hour to rearrange the input and rotor settings to my liking. But then, the helicopter flew like a dream, even without the gyro. Congratulations
+2@WinsWings yea, he's a charmer. That's why I can't deny him to have his own plane, or car I stead of just looking over my shoulder when I am flying SimplePlanes
+2Did I see this right? Your engine is a rotator block with four wings attached to it? Kudos ... I claim the 50th upvote for this thing. Though to be sure, you deserved that upvote alone for using shock absorbers in your landing gear already.
+2Marvelous visuals, marvelous flying characteristics. I call on @Jundroo to make this the standard demonstrator helicopter in their new game.
One gripe though: 2500 hp.on tht rotor is overkill. The helicopter flies perfectly, even better, with only 250
+2Too much parts for me to fly on my little cell phone, but every builder that spends 300 points on a historically correct engine deserves my upvote
+2Ailerons too big for my taste. The plane rolls like crazy. Otherwise quite a nice design.
+2@WinsWings I don't think a turboprop would be necessary, may be later for a modernized kitbashed bushplane, but for now the radial engine has up to 2000 HP power. You rated yours at 1200. So you still have some spare. Also a floatplane has the whole ocean for a runway, so it can pack some extra weight.
Ps, if you want to talk things through, hit me up on the Discord server. My handle is the same as here: sockdragger
+2Waauw. It looks the part and flies like a dream.
+2Not bad for 1/2 hour, although it took me 1 1/2 hours to add flaps and calibrate the optimal angle for landing approach... Yes, I fly a YE-36B
+2@AircraftLover754 I haven't flown around with your helicopter enough to find anything I would fix immediately. But from the top of my head: the thing has trouble gaining altitude, so increase tht power of the wingtip jets, use XML editor to kill the drag of the rotor blades, both the actual wings and the fuselage sleeves and finally, consider adding a wing control surface to add as a rotor blade tilt mechanism. May be set it to the VTOL slider...
+2Thanks for reinventing the wheel, or in this case the rotor
+2Love the plane: it looks the part and flies like a dream. Immediately downloaded your 70 part Mig and spawning it left and right for dogfighting
+2@WinsWings I know it closed like two years ago, but you got another entry just last week, and I bet you will still get more. So I decided: Well, why not.
Update: the F8F was indeed posted 2 years ago, but it showed up in my jet stream just last week.
+2@ThomasRoderick coming up
+2Looks quite spiffy for less than 100 parts and looks pretty detailed. Also I love how you get a STOL plane that takes off at 36 mph without even thinking of flaps, just using the lift of the wing.
+2Custom seat and historically accurate engine instruments in the engine nacelles (IRL, the cockpit was too cramped for more instruments). Love it!
+2Did you aim for it to have exactly 666 parts or is this just a lucky coincidence.
+2Congratulations on a nice little flyer. I would give it a sincere up vote if you had spent five more minutes coloring the plane. Just painting all the struts silver and the wings red or blue makes a nice upgrade.
+2@V likewise. It took me two days of trial and error just to get my first plane not to crash on every landing. And after all the mods, it just looked atrocious.
+2The cup of tea at the radio operator's station did it for me. Congratulations on a truely remarkable built
+2Doors that fall off included?
+1Any plans to build one in SP?
+1@QuesoAirlines yes, I recall those: "The flying car, next year in your garage?"... They were showing articles like that at least since 1950.
+1The P.stands for Project. According to Lippish's own biography, this was a design study for a dour-engined bomber or transporter he and his team made for the 'Department L' at Messerschmitt.... Mostly to keep themselves busy while the development of the Me.163 was entering a slow phase.
+1Form over function definitely, but I love it.
+1This just needs a 1950's paint scheme in sky blue and light green. I can see it popping up on Aeroflot posters from that area.
+1@ChaseRacliot yea, the name is a bit misleading, but it is a toy plane, even if I would have wished for some battle of Britain decals
+1This one actually looks as if it could have been made out of pressed tin. Congratulations
+1Oh, no... You didn't....
+1Wing floats and float struts must be way longer, and you can do without half of the bouyancy in the main float, but otherwise a real nice plane
+1Love tht little details. Two ideas for improvements though 1) Bigger control surfaces for better handling, 2) Longer nose wheel strut so you can make the propeller bigger too (120 in. At least) Speed will improve at least by half.
+1I wouldn't upvote an aircraft that has neither flaps nor air brakes, but this thing has so many other cool features I don't mind having to land at 399 mph, even if I still crash half of the time. Upvote sent.
+1Actually flies pretty well.
+1I'd give it a 10 for looks. Also with some RCN nozzles to the front and the back, you can fly it without gyroscope.
+1Love the details... And on top of that, she flies like a dream. It's definitely a trainer because I just can't seem to crash it
+1What? So stable it flies without a gyroscope?
+1