@KidKromosone It was removed on the premise that it was a post about a block. I figured that was the case, but wanted to double check with the moderator that handled the situation.
.
Posts about blocking people are generally sensitive topics and thus not massively welcome on the site as they can create conflict between users.
.
Mentioning that a user has blocked another user can lead to harassment of both users. Believe it or not a similar situation played out that I tried to handle a while back. It too started with an apology post and it ended on less than friendly terms as other users outside of those involved decided to involve themselves and it got out of hand. If you want to apologise to someone, let one of the mods know and we'll handle the situation and try to avoid using the users name in public to avoid any conflict.
.
That is likely why your post was removed too @ThePilotDude
.
@CruzerBlade @FastDan @MechWARRIOR57 I've tagged you guys so you understand that there is "method to the madness" in removing seemingly innocent posts.
Moderators don't "overcompensate" the rules. Often before removing a post that has us a bit on the wall, it gets posted on the mod chat and then we talk about whether or not it should be removed. Occasionally we do get it wrong for a number of reason from lack of context to something as simple as being tired.
.
However 99% of the time there is a logical justification for the removal of a post. If we feel it's obvious, we leave a comment explaining why, if it isn't we leave a preset comment about reading the rules.
.
With that in mind, we generally "look before we leap" a lot more often than we don't. A lot more goes on behind the scenes than people give it credit for. However, automod is a thing for builds, which removes posts if a most is reported a number of times. Sometimes a post can get removed unintentionally if a number of users false flag it.
.
Apologising posts can be regarded as stirring up drama depending on the context and thus they can be removed as they can cause more harm than good.
.
I'll have a look into the situation and get back to you.
I'm disappointed that I'm not on this list. I'll have you know I'm a very well integrated member of this community... and upload creations all the time... sometimes... maybe every month or so... or once a year.
@buildingisoverrated Mod powers allow me to see deleted comments. I can't say the reaction isn't justified on your behalf. Nobody like to be accused of something based on... questionable evidence. But presumably your reply didn't help either.
.
However, I personally disagree with your stance to leave. It's unfortunate that a small number of people are affecting your ability to enjoy the site. If you decide to stay, I suggest tagging a mod or dropping us a comment on an unlisted post to discuss the issue before it gets out of hand and/or using the block feature.
.
I'd personally suggest to wait this out and see what BuiltBionixInd10 has to say first and seeing what comes of this. It wouldn't be fair on the community if everyone comes away from this feeling a little sour if there was a chance it could be mutually resolved.
@ThomasRoderick It's a reference to the flare pattern from an A/C130. When the pop flares they come out in a pattern which looks like the wings/body of an angel. This pattern is sometimes referred to as angel flares or angel of death. When you use the brakes on this build (pitch back) the formation of the dragon resembles that of the 130s flare pattern. This coupled with the sinister undertones of the build led me to call it the Angel of Death.
.
It's an AI mech with one purpose and to those that would hypothetically be on the receiving end of this, it could very well be the last thing they see. A distant winged silhouette in the sky, an angel maybe? Then it's lights out.
@Mmdben VTOL engines are on the cards. They're not really a type of engine though, but more a modification of existing engine types. By that I mean if you removed all the VTOL components it would still work fine as a jet. Whereas removing the props on a turboprop would basically lead to a brown stain in your pants.
@WarHawk95 The nuclear one is pretty simple. Nuclear reactors generate loads of heat, which is why you can end up with "nuclear meltdowns" when the cooling systems fail. The idea is to use the nuclear reactor coolant (which has just left the reactor and thus very very hot) to heat up the air, instead of using a combustion chamber to ignite the air and heat it up. So:
- Air enters compressor and increases in pressure
- Pressurised air goes to what we call as "heat exchange". The air is then heated up by the reactor fluid, an act which simultaneously cools the reactor fluid (you're just transferring the heat from the reactor to the air).
- Air obtains more pressure as a result of the heat and forces its way out the exhaust, thus turning the turbines which in turn turn the compressor.
- Rinse and repeat.
.
It is in principle, exactly the same as a jet engine. If you're still a bit confused, I made an article that goes into how engines work which you may find useful.
@Viper3000ad to answer your first question, the fuel is ignited initially via a spark, similar to how you start a piston engine. Only, because the axial flow is a continuous process, once ignited, the fuel stays ignited in the combustion chamber. Like using a match to start a candle.
You should do a bloopers section with all the times I flew into the bridge... I mean, uh, I have great piloting skills and would never fly into a bridge.
@Aeromen If you're referring to the flap action, I put that in to counter the downward force of the flaps.
.
The elevators on the SU-57 aren't really just just standard elevators. Firstly, they're what is called an all moving tailplane, meaning the whole surface moves instead of just one tab from the horizontal stabiliser. They're also not just elevators, they're technically elevons meaning they act as ailerons as well as elevators. The Flaps/ailerons aren't single use either, they're called flaperons meaning that the control surface acts as both a flap and an aileron.
. Here's a video showing the surfaces moving. When you look carefully you'll see that all the surfaces appear to be able to move independently from one another due to the fact that the control surfaces don't just have a single purpose. If you look at the "elevators" for example, you'll notice the far one moves up while the other one doesn't and vice versa.
I think it might be the lack of wing mirrors. Maybe if you add those it would look right? If that doesn't work, try setting the primary colour to #ff4ff0
Might I make a suggestion? If you want to smooth out the shading a bit, I highly recommend using a cotton bud and rubbing it on the bits you want to blend more. It helps take away the sharpness of the pencil while also helping blend any gradual shading.
Also, this setup allows for an ironic feature you wouldn't normally associate (or what to associate) with helicopters.
.
An Ejection Seat.
.
Essentially the blades are connected to sleeves which eject the blades. Less than a second later, a conventional ejection sequence is initiated, meaning the pilot can eject without worrying about whether he's going to end up on a shelf at Tescos under the mince meat section.
Damn, sorry to hear about all that. I did wonder why the testbed aircraft wasn't in MP for a few weeks. I've missed accidentally flying into it and conducting joint strike mission exercises on hostile people in MP.
.
And yeah, it really sucks (understatement of the century) when people leave their partner to be with someone else, regardless of the relationship status. It sucks even more when the lack the nuts to actually contribute child support, which I'm pretty sure is illegal in most western countries. So, you could probably get a good lawyer and milk him for what he's worth. I imagine it would be a fairly quick court case provided you have the evidence (bank statements, etc.). probably worth starting a "go fund me" for it too to get a good lawyer, etc. I imagine you'd get a lot of financial support from it given the nature of the circumstances. I know I'd donate to it and share it with my friends. I'd probably make one on behalf of you, but I don't know your details, so it would be difficult for me to do.
.
Anyway, I hope things clear up for you soon. And if you do start a fund raising thingy, let me know.
As previous users have mentioned, the aerofoil settings dictate how much lift is generated by the wing. This can be particularly helpful if you're building a slow aircraft, STOL aircraft or when used strategically it can be used to increase the stability of your build.
.
However, from personal experience with builds, changing the aerofoil to flat bottom (or semi symmetric from symmetric) will cause a small decrease in your overall maximum speed. It's not a huge speed difference, but if you're prioritising a build for maximum speed (supersonic fighter aircraft, etc) it's worth bearing in mind.
.
Pitching issues can arise from changing the aerofoil type to one that produces more lift. Especially if you're not used to trimming your build out with the different aerofoils. For example, if you add an aerofoil to your horizontal stabiliser (on the tail), your tail will produce more lift, causing the nose to pitch/rotate downward. Likewise, adding a lift generating aerofoil to canards will cause it to pitch upward (as more lift is being produced at the nose end of the aircraft).
It depends on what you're after.
.
Personally, I'd choose the surface pro or an alternative Windows OS product. If it's for education, you know off the bat that all the apps, software, etc will work and I think a lot of people will agree when I say you tend to get a bit more for your money.
.
If you're going for apple, I'd be inclined to say the macbook again from a software support standpoint. However, you'll get less for your money. The thing about buying apple is that you're investing in the OS and the ecosystem rather than the product. If you're an apple fan and already have a load of apple products, it's definitely worth considering. That and apple definitely has the added bonus of the trendy factor if you're into that kind of thing.
.
Personally though, I've seen/read a lot of horror stories where their products have cut corners for example things like the PCB solder connections. That and when things go wrong, they tend to blame the customer, especially if you don't have the relevant care package with the product. But I think that's an issue that's more related to the apple community (and their ability to hold apple accountable), rather than apple itself.
.
Like I say, out of the 3 options, I'd be inclined to go with the Surface Pro 6. But if I could, I'd shop around for other comparable products, especially when you're investing 1,000+ quid into it. You'll want to make sure you get something that's at least a little bit future proof.
.
Also, feel free to completely disregard everything I've just said. You'll know your needs and what you're looking for better than I do. I'm just providing an answer based on what has been put in front of me.
Royal International Air Tattoo is supposed to be a great one in the UK. Almost went this year, but bailed as it wasn't financially viable for me at the time. It's supposed to be the largest military aviation airshow in the world.
@JohnnyBoythePilot You analysis of the X-32 is inaccurate. The X-32 was allegedly very comparable with the X-35 and could exceed it in some ways. The X-32 engine design would have in fact given less headaches because of its more conventional design. Which is exactly why the F-35 has had a lot of engine issues.
.
Boeing didn't shoot itself in the foot. The government basically killed the X-32 single-handedly by changing the requirements AFTER the X-32 prototype had been built. Meanwhile because Lockheed were still building the X-35, they were able to adapt the requirements.
.
As a response, the X-32 rightly had parts removed to meet the new requirements and make it more in line with the final product in the competition, but was subsequently disqualified by the US government for doing so. They conducted the test in a denser atmosphere, not because it couldn't perform well, but because they knew that a denser atmosphere would give them the edge against the X-35, meaning it would perform better than the X-35. I guess you could argue it was dirty tactics, but there were no rules stating you couldn't do that. So it was just smart thinking on their part.
.
Overall, I think the X-32 would have shaped up to be a great aircraft (if a very stupid looking one) and perhaps, dare I say better than the F-35.
I had something similar happen to an outdoor RC helicopter of mine. The manufacturers had installed some things on the rotor wrong and I wasn't aware of it. So while I was flying it, it wouldn't respond to some control inputs and if it did, it would basically try and nose dive into the ground.
.
I told my dad and he was all like "you're not flying it right. Here, let me have a go".
.
About 2 seconds later the helicopter just makes a straight beeline onto the nearest hillside where it just casually splats against the ground and half of the components snapped off.
.
My dad just looks at me afterwards like: "yeah, it was broken". I just sat there thinking "you don't say".
Also, for anyone thinking that I'm roasting some poor unfortunate person's plane in the first image; that poor unfortunate person is me. Yes, I too make bad planes... 99% of the time.
.
Please lend me your sympathies for my self inflicted roast.
As much as I don't like Apple, I have to disagree with you here. The headphone jack is analogue technology and thus prone to error when listening to music/sound from it. Most of it isn't detectable to the average user, if at all, but the fact people know they're listening to music with errors means they know they aren't listening to what the artist intended them to listen to.
.
USB Type C uses digital transmission, thus the signal is comprised of 1s and 0s, meaning that even if the signal is distorted, the receiver can rectify most/any errors in the signal. By contrast, it's next to impossible to rectify errors as there's more than just 2 states for the signal. This image shows what I mean. It's a bit simplified, but you can easily tell on the digital signal where the 1 and the 0 are supposed to be... not so much on the other though.
.
With that in mind, one faces a dilemma. USB type C is more than capable of transmitting music to an output device, so you can give the end user a superior listening experience, but at the cost of removing the headphone jack. But as phones become slimmer, lighter, some of these older technologies will have to become obsolete in order for devices to progress forwards.
.
The notch is a transitional phase to a bezel-less display. Manufacturers are still working out what to do with things like the front camera and speakers. Although, these problems have largely been rectified on prototype and some production devices. needless to say, I'd be surprised if the notch is still a thing in about 2 years time.
.
All in all, these issues are either temporary or necessary. And as in most cases, Android devices had released devices with a notch and without a headphone jack before apple did. Apple just jumped on the bandwagon as per usual.
@Embo temp banned for use of foul language as well as 6 other other rule breaking incidents. Typically, we'd perma ban a user with this many strikes, but they have a history of helping diffuse conflicts which has played to their advantage on this particular occasion.
I'm an aerostructures design engineer, but I don't design planes. I design mechanical components to integrate avionic components for aircraft modifications.
@BuiltBionixInd10 @buildingisoverrated I have no idea what's going on here. But it's obvious to me that it isn't healthy for the site as a whole. Would both of you mind informing me what's going on?
Your post has been removed. Please read these rules about posting planes.
Please try to make major changes to a plane before posting it. Simply painting an object a different color, or adding a few guns is not enough to consider it your own. In the future please credit the original maker, and try to post your own work.
Your post has been removed. Please read these rules about posting planes.
Please try to make major changes to a plane before posting it. Simply painting an object a different color, or adding a few guns is not enough to consider it your own. In the future please credit the original maker, and try to post your own work.
I suggest using wings with controls (or rigged up to rotators) that align with your flap controls (say they're both controlled by the VTOL slider input for example) then scale them down and embed them in the wing/fuselage so they're hidden and out of sight. Scaling doesn't effect the lift they generate, so when in operation, you should still see a substantial increase in lift (depending on the initial wing/control surface size).
.
One thing to note is that flaps generally increase the drag of an aircraft, so you might want to hide some airbrakes away (again so they're out of sight) that operate with the flaps.
The origins of the J-20 can be traced back to 1971 with the J-9 project. No physical aircraft came from the program, but a notable development from it was a twin engine canard delta wind tunnel model that does have a striking resemblance to the the J-20 design.
@KidKromosone It was removed on the premise that it was a post about a block. I figured that was the case, but wanted to double check with the moderator that handled the situation.
+3.
Posts about blocking people are generally sensitive topics and thus not massively welcome on the site as they can create conflict between users.
.
Mentioning that a user has blocked another user can lead to harassment of both users. Believe it or not a similar situation played out that I tried to handle a while back. It too started with an apology post and it ended on less than friendly terms as other users outside of those involved decided to involve themselves and it got out of hand. If you want to apologise to someone, let one of the mods know and we'll handle the situation and try to avoid using the users name in public to avoid any conflict.
.
That is likely why your post was removed too @ThePilotDude
.
@CruzerBlade @FastDan @MechWARRIOR57 I've tagged you guys so you understand that there is "method to the madness" in removing seemingly innocent posts.
Moderators don't "overcompensate" the rules. Often before removing a post that has us a bit on the wall, it gets posted on the mod chat and then we talk about whether or not it should be removed. Occasionally we do get it wrong for a number of reason from lack of context to something as simple as being tired.
+3.
However 99% of the time there is a logical justification for the removal of a post. If we feel it's obvious, we leave a comment explaining why, if it isn't we leave a preset comment about reading the rules.
.
With that in mind, we generally "look before we leap" a lot more often than we don't. A lot more goes on behind the scenes than people give it credit for. However, automod is a thing for builds, which removes posts if a most is reported a number of times. Sometimes a post can get removed unintentionally if a number of users false flag it.
.
Apologising posts can be regarded as stirring up drama depending on the context and thus they can be removed as they can cause more harm than good.
.
I'll have a look into the situation and get back to you.
@ForeverPie nice. I look forward to seeing it!
+3I'm disappointed that I'm not on this list. I'll have you know I'm a very well integrated member of this community... and upload creations all the time... sometimes... maybe every month or so... or once a year.
+3Just remembered what happened in the top photo:
"Okay here's the plan"
Everyone blows up
+3@Smokehouse03 Stop the insults please. That kind of behaviour can land you with a ban.
Edit: by the looks of things it already has
+3@buildingisoverrated Mod powers allow me to see deleted comments. I can't say the reaction isn't justified on your behalf. Nobody like to be accused of something based on... questionable evidence. But presumably your reply didn't help either.
+2.
However, I personally disagree with your stance to leave. It's unfortunate that a small number of people are affecting your ability to enjoy the site. If you decide to stay, I suggest tagging a mod or dropping us a comment on an unlisted post to discuss the issue before it gets out of hand and/or using the block feature.
.
I'd personally suggest to wait this out and see what BuiltBionixInd10 has to say first and seeing what comes of this. It wouldn't be fair on the community if everyone comes away from this feeling a little sour if there was a chance it could be mutually resolved.
@otayahiromo8211 let's not resort to name calling on the site. Even if you feel the user is being annoying. Consider this a warning.
+2My disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined.
+2@BuiltBionixInd10 what? No, I don't... It's... A new pair of glasses.
+2To make the best police helicopter, you should include the following:
- a chin turret with an electric 20 mm (0.79 in) six-barrel Gatling gun capable of a rate of fire of 4,000 rounds per minute.
- twin cheek-mounted Nitesun spotlights
- infrared thermograph
- airborne TV camera with 100:1 zoom and night-vision capability
- External audio pickups capable of hearing "a mouse fart at two thousand feet"
- A "whisper mode" to grant her the ability to operate in silence.
+2Nice meme, @Tully2001
+2@ThomasRoderick It's a reference to the flare pattern from an A/C130. When the pop flares they come out in a pattern which looks like the wings/body of an angel. This pattern is sometimes referred to as angel flares or angel of death. When you use the brakes on this build (pitch back) the formation of the dragon resembles that of the 130s flare pattern. This coupled with the sinister undertones of the build led me to call it the Angel of Death.
+2.
It's an AI mech with one purpose and to those that would hypothetically be on the receiving end of this, it could very well be the last thing they see. A distant winged silhouette in the sky, an angel maybe? Then it's lights out.
@Mmdben VTOL engines are on the cards. They're not really a type of engine though, but more a modification of existing engine types. By that I mean if you removed all the VTOL components it would still work fine as a jet. Whereas removing the props on a turboprop would basically lead to a brown stain in your pants.
+2@WarHawk95 The nuclear one is pretty simple. Nuclear reactors generate loads of heat, which is why you can end up with "nuclear meltdowns" when the cooling systems fail. The idea is to use the nuclear reactor coolant (which has just left the reactor and thus very very hot) to heat up the air, instead of using a combustion chamber to ignite the air and heat it up. So:
+2- Air enters compressor and increases in pressure
- Pressurised air goes to what we call as "heat exchange". The air is then heated up by the reactor fluid, an act which simultaneously cools the reactor fluid (you're just transferring the heat from the reactor to the air).
- Air obtains more pressure as a result of the heat and forces its way out the exhaust, thus turning the turbines which in turn turn the compressor.
- Rinse and repeat.
.
It is in principle, exactly the same as a jet engine. If you're still a bit confused, I made an article that goes into how engines work which you may find useful.
@Viper3000ad to answer your first question, the fuel is ignited initially via a spark, similar to how you start a piston engine. Only, because the axial flow is a continuous process, once ignited, the fuel stays ignited in the combustion chamber. Like using a match to start a candle.
+2@Stormfur We already have a month for that. What do you think RPM stands for?
+2Revs Perception Month.
You should do a bloopers section with all the times I flew into the bridge... I mean, uh, I have great piloting skills and would never fly into a bridge.
+2@Aeromen If you're referring to the flap action, I put that in to counter the downward force of the flaps.
+2.
The elevators on the SU-57 aren't really just just standard elevators. Firstly, they're what is called an all moving tailplane, meaning the whole surface moves instead of just one tab from the horizontal stabiliser. They're also not just elevators, they're technically elevons meaning they act as ailerons as well as elevators. The Flaps/ailerons aren't single use either, they're called flaperons meaning that the control surface acts as both a flap and an aileron.
.
Here's a video showing the surfaces moving. When you look carefully you'll see that all the surfaces appear to be able to move independently from one another due to the fact that the control surfaces don't just have a single purpose. If you look at the "elevators" for example, you'll notice the far one moves up while the other one doesn't and vice versa.
@Tully2001 I'm afraid to say it. but... you're a calpolholic
+2@randomusername yeah, you can go pretty nuts with it. I had a build which was bigger the the whole of Wright when it was spawned in.
+2@randomusername disable drag for everything
+2I think it might be the lack of wing mirrors. Maybe if you add those it would look right? If that doesn't work, try setting the primary colour to #ff4ff0
+2Might I make a suggestion? If you want to smooth out the shading a bit, I highly recommend using a cotton bud and rubbing it on the bits you want to blend more. It helps take away the sharpness of the pencil while also helping blend any gradual shading.
+2Also, this setup allows for an ironic feature you wouldn't normally associate (or what to associate) with helicopters.
+2.
An Ejection Seat.
.
Essentially the blades are connected to sleeves which eject the blades. Less than a second later, a conventional ejection sequence is initiated, meaning the pilot can eject without worrying about whether he's going to end up on a shelf at Tescos under the mince meat section.
Either 1 or 7
+2Damn, sorry to hear about all that. I did wonder why the testbed aircraft wasn't in MP for a few weeks. I've missed accidentally flying into it and conducting joint strike mission exercises on hostile people in MP.
+2.
And yeah, it really sucks (understatement of the century) when people leave their partner to be with someone else, regardless of the relationship status. It sucks even more when the lack the nuts to actually contribute child support, which I'm pretty sure is illegal in most western countries. So, you could probably get a good lawyer and milk him for what he's worth. I imagine it would be a fairly quick court case provided you have the evidence (bank statements, etc.). probably worth starting a "go fund me" for it too to get a good lawyer, etc. I imagine you'd get a lot of financial support from it given the nature of the circumstances. I know I'd donate to it and share it with my friends. I'd probably make one on behalf of you, but I don't know your details, so it would be difficult for me to do.
.
Anyway, I hope things clear up for you soon. And if you do start a fund raising thingy, let me know.
As previous users have mentioned, the aerofoil settings dictate how much lift is generated by the wing. This can be particularly helpful if you're building a slow aircraft, STOL aircraft or when used strategically it can be used to increase the stability of your build.
+2.
However, from personal experience with builds, changing the aerofoil to flat bottom (or semi symmetric from symmetric) will cause a small decrease in your overall maximum speed. It's not a huge speed difference, but if you're prioritising a build for maximum speed (supersonic fighter aircraft, etc) it's worth bearing in mind.
.
Pitching issues can arise from changing the aerofoil type to one that produces more lift. Especially if you're not used to trimming your build out with the different aerofoils. For example, if you add an aerofoil to your horizontal stabiliser (on the tail), your tail will produce more lift, causing the nose to pitch/rotate downward. Likewise, adding a lift generating aerofoil to canards will cause it to pitch upward (as more lift is being produced at the nose end of the aircraft).
"best features of all three aircraft"
+2doesnt include spitfire wing shapeTriggered
@EternalDarkness plays "don't disrespect your elders" card
+2@EternalDarkness plays the I'm an older mod card and thus have more rights or something like that
+2@Chancey21 you need to step up your game. I use exactly 0 tags. The only ones I do have are ones made by @Tully2001
+2JOHN FOLLOW ME
+2It depends on what you're after.
+2.
Personally, I'd choose the surface pro or an alternative Windows OS product. If it's for education, you know off the bat that all the apps, software, etc will work and I think a lot of people will agree when I say you tend to get a bit more for your money.
.
If you're going for apple, I'd be inclined to say the macbook again from a software support standpoint. However, you'll get less for your money. The thing about buying apple is that you're investing in the OS and the ecosystem rather than the product. If you're an apple fan and already have a load of apple products, it's definitely worth considering. That and apple definitely has the added bonus of the trendy factor if you're into that kind of thing.
.
Personally though, I've seen/read a lot of horror stories where their products have cut corners for example things like the PCB solder connections. That and when things go wrong, they tend to blame the customer, especially if you don't have the relevant care package with the product. But I think that's an issue that's more related to the apple community (and their ability to hold apple accountable), rather than apple itself.
.
Like I say, out of the 3 options, I'd be inclined to go with the Surface Pro 6. But if I could, I'd shop around for other comparable products, especially when you're investing 1,000+ quid into it. You'll want to make sure you get something that's at least a little bit future proof.
.
Also, feel free to completely disregard everything I've just said. You'll know your needs and what you're looking for better than I do. I'm just providing an answer based on what has been put in front of me.
I has been sorted
+2Royal International Air Tattoo is supposed to be a great one in the UK. Almost went this year, but bailed as it wasn't financially viable for me at the time. It's supposed to be the largest military aviation airshow in the world.
+2@WNP78 triggered
+2@JohnnyBoythePilot You analysis of the X-32 is inaccurate. The X-32 was allegedly very comparable with the X-35 and could exceed it in some ways. The X-32 engine design would have in fact given less headaches because of its more conventional design. Which is exactly why the F-35 has had a lot of engine issues.
+2.
Boeing didn't shoot itself in the foot. The government basically killed the X-32 single-handedly by changing the requirements AFTER the X-32 prototype had been built. Meanwhile because Lockheed were still building the X-35, they were able to adapt the requirements.
.
As a response, the X-32 rightly had parts removed to meet the new requirements and make it more in line with the final product in the competition, but was subsequently disqualified by the US government for doing so. They conducted the test in a denser atmosphere, not because it couldn't perform well, but because they knew that a denser atmosphere would give them the edge against the X-35, meaning it would perform better than the X-35. I guess you could argue it was dirty tactics, but there were no rules stating you couldn't do that. So it was just smart thinking on their part.
.
Overall, I think the X-32 would have shaped up to be a great aircraft (if a very stupid looking one) and perhaps, dare I say better than the F-35.
I had something similar happen to an outdoor RC helicopter of mine. The manufacturers had installed some things on the rotor wrong and I wasn't aware of it. So while I was flying it, it wouldn't respond to some control inputs and if it did, it would basically try and nose dive into the ground.
+2.
I told my dad and he was all like "you're not flying it right. Here, let me have a go".
.
About 2 seconds later the helicopter just makes a straight beeline onto the nearest hillside where it just casually splats against the ground and half of the components snapped off.
.
My dad just looks at me afterwards like: "yeah, it was broken". I just sat there thinking "you don't say".
Also, for anyone thinking that I'm roasting some poor unfortunate person's plane in the first image; that poor unfortunate person is me. Yes, I too make bad planes... 99% of the time.
+2.
Please lend me your sympathies for my self inflicted roast.
As much as I don't like Apple, I have to disagree with you here. The headphone jack is analogue technology and thus prone to error when listening to music/sound from it. Most of it isn't detectable to the average user, if at all, but the fact people know they're listening to music with errors means they know they aren't listening to what the artist intended them to listen to.
+2.
USB Type C uses digital transmission, thus the signal is comprised of 1s and 0s, meaning that even if the signal is distorted, the receiver can rectify most/any errors in the signal. By contrast, it's next to impossible to rectify errors as there's more than just 2 states for the signal. This image shows what I mean. It's a bit simplified, but you can easily tell on the digital signal where the 1 and the 0 are supposed to be... not so much on the other though.
.
With that in mind, one faces a dilemma. USB type C is more than capable of transmitting music to an output device, so you can give the end user a superior listening experience, but at the cost of removing the headphone jack. But as phones become slimmer, lighter, some of these older technologies will have to become obsolete in order for devices to progress forwards.
.
The notch is a transitional phase to a bezel-less display. Manufacturers are still working out what to do with things like the front camera and speakers. Although, these problems have largely been rectified on prototype and some production devices. needless to say, I'd be surprised if the notch is still a thing in about 2 years time.
.
All in all, these issues are either temporary or necessary. And as in most cases, Android devices had released devices with a notch and without a headphone jack before apple did. Apple just jumped on the bandwagon as per usual.
@ForeverPie remember don't make a build you think the community will like, make one you enjoy building.
+2CoM = Centre of Mass (red sphere)
+2CoL= Centre of Lift (Blue Sphere)
@Embo temp banned for use of foul language as well as 6 other other rule breaking incidents. Typically, we'd perma ban a user with this many strikes, but they have a history of helping diffuse conflicts which has played to their advantage on this particular occasion.
+1I'm an aerostructures design engineer, but I don't design planes. I design mechanical components to integrate avionic components for aircraft modifications.
+1@BuiltBionixInd10 @buildingisoverrated I have no idea what's going on here. But it's obvious to me that it isn't healthy for the site as a whole. Would both of you mind informing me what's going on?
+1Your post has been removed. Please read these rules about posting planes.
+1Please try to make major changes to a plane before posting it. Simply painting an object a different color, or adding a few guns is not enough to consider it your own. In the future please credit the original maker, and try to post your own work.
Your post has been removed. Please read these rules about posting planes.
+1Please try to make major changes to a plane before posting it. Simply painting an object a different color, or adding a few guns is not enough to consider it your own. In the future please credit the original maker, and try to post your own work.
I suggest using wings with controls (or rigged up to rotators) that align with your flap controls (say they're both controlled by the VTOL slider input for example) then scale them down and embed them in the wing/fuselage so they're hidden and out of sight. Scaling doesn't effect the lift they generate, so when in operation, you should still see a substantial increase in lift (depending on the initial wing/control surface size).
+1.
One thing to note is that flaps generally increase the drag of an aircraft, so you might want to hide some airbrakes away (again so they're out of sight) that operate with the flaps.
The origins of the J-20 can be traced back to 1971 with the J-9 project. No physical aircraft came from the program, but a notable development from it was a twin engine canard delta wind tunnel model that does have a striking resemblance to the the J-20 design.
+1