@FujiwaraAutoShop True. I made this mainly because it's not something I've seen on the website, and also as a proof-of-concept to test thrust vector nozzles that use the nozzle flaps for vectoring instead of just moving the whole nozzle.
@griges I personally don't have much experience with interior parts. I've tried custom button inputs before but ran into problems. I'd post a forum about it and wait for someone with more experience to answer.
@STENDEC The name "Arbitrator" is a sort of call-back to the B-36.
The B-36's nickname was the Peacemaker, so I decided to name this the Arbitrator since it's a synonym of Peacemaker.
@STENDEC It's essentially a mix between an XB-35 and a B-36.
I was considering a full-jet version, but I chose not to do that. I figured a mixed-propulsion flying-wing would be more interesting than a full-jet.
@griges
The Target is the value you want the controller to achieve.
The Current is the variable that you want to be controlled (it can be Altitude, AngleOfAttack, or pretty much any data value). The controller will attempt to change whatever the Current is so that it's equal to the Target value.
The p value (proportional) is how much output the controller should give.
The i value (integral) is how quickly the controller should try to meet the Target value.
The d value (derivative) is how careful the controller should be. This is to prevent overcorrecting/overshooting the target value. It's essentially an input dampener for the controller.
The Target, p, i, and d values are supposed to be numbers (though I'm pretty sure the Target value can be a different data value as well).
The format should look like this: PID(Target, Current, p, i, d).
An example of what this could look like: PID(0, AngleOfAttack, 0.005, 0.001, 0.0025).
@ReinMcDeer It works quite well actually. It takes a bit of getting used to flying the thing because the elevons tend to induce asymmetric drag while using Pitch and Roll at the same time. It'll sideslip a bit while turning unless you give some yaw input.
@ReinMcDeer This is a true flying wing.
It uses YawRate and AngleOfSlip programmed into hidden airbrakes.
I also gave it some slack on the stability to have a little more drift (like a pre-fly-by-wire flying wing).
Depends on the plane and propeller specifications (not the engine, just the prop on its own).
I'm also by no means an expert on props. These are just basic things to consider.
I'd recommend trying different pitches to see what works best.
@BeeEngineer While the M50 was unable to pass Mach 1, the wing design was not the only factor.
There have also been several examples of aircraft that had/have delta wings with straight/mostly straight trailing edges, and I can't find sufficient data suggesting that they had significant issues with it.
So while it may present such challenges realistically, it really shouldn't present a large issue if the aircraft is aerodynamically and structurally sound.
If you have an article regarding trailing edge flow in this manner, could you provide a link? I've been unable to find one that addressed this specifically.
Este é de longe um dos projetos de aeronaves particulares mais interessantes.
Muito bom, gosto muito!
Nota: peço desculpas se estiver usando a tradução errada. Corrija-me se eu estiver.
@JustWingIt See that drop-down button on the top-right corner of a comment/post? Click that, and it gives you options, one of which is the Report option.
Two things that could be fixed would be the weight and drag. For a glider of this size it's pretty heavy. The drag points are a bit high as well. Low weight and low drag are key factors for making an efficient glider.
If you want post-stall capability without solely relying on TVC, then the best way would probably be to make the aircraft unstable and add fly-by-wire stability.
@ehtishamcoop Check the console. If it just says "failed to connect" without further context, then the server is likely full or down. If so, then either wait and try again or connect to the secondary server.
"Take off requires over 370 knots for some reason"
Your landing gear is way too far back. It should be positioned as close to the center of mass as possible without causing the aircraft to tip backwards on the ground.
I recommend using either Discord or postimages.org for uploading images (if you use postimages.org, be sure to use the "Direct Link" and not the normal "Link", otherwise the image will not appear).
@jamesPLANESii Assuming MP was readjusted to work on mobile devices, the mod itself might work.
But that won't solve the issue of limited server capacity. It'd be hard to enjoy MP when the one server that we have (publicly, and functional) is constantly overflowing with so many users.
Now, if mobile users could set up their own servers so that overloading becomes less of an issue, but I'm not sure if mobile devices can act as a server (some might).
This would be easier to solve if we had a wide variety of servers to choose from, but we don't have that luxury at the moment.
@Airheaddivision Sure! I can't guarantee that I'll be able to help with every problem, but I'll do what I can.
I won't be active for several hours though, so if you tag me during that time I likely won't respond for a little while.
Beautiful.
I've always liked the F-104. Not for any particular reason other than its proportions and power. It's just an amazing aircraft in its own way.
Welcome back.
+1@FujiwaraAutoShop True. I made this mainly because it's not something I've seen on the website, and also as a proof-of-concept to test thrust vector nozzles that use the nozzle flaps for vectoring instead of just moving the whole nozzle.
+1@FujiwaraAutoShop @IDNSatyaSlebew
+1Well, it does have 108 rotators...
@MobileBuilder21 Yes. Walvis met the qualifications for his own YouTube tag.
+1Or this:
+1
+1Throttle*(TAS>#)should work.@griges I personally don't have much experience with interior parts. I've tried custom button inputs before but ran into problems. I'd post a forum about it and wait for someone with more experience to answer.
+1@STENDEC The name "Arbitrator" is a sort of call-back to the B-36.
+1The B-36's nickname was the Peacemaker, so I decided to name this the Arbitrator since it's a synonym of Peacemaker.
@STENDEC It's essentially a mix between an XB-35 and a B-36.
+1I was considering a full-jet version, but I chose not to do that. I figured a mixed-propulsion flying-wing would be more interesting than a full-jet.
@griges
The
Targetis the value you want the controller to achieve.The
Currentis the variable that you want to be controlled (it can be Altitude, AngleOfAttack, or pretty much any data value). The controller will attempt to change whatever theCurrentis so that it's equal to theTargetvalue.The
pvalue (proportional) is how much output the controller should give.The
ivalue (integral) is how quickly the controller should try to meet theTargetvalue.The
dvalue (derivative) is how careful the controller should be. This is to prevent overcorrecting/overshooting the target value. It's essentially an input dampener for the controller.The
Target,p,i, anddvalues are supposed to be numbers (though I'm pretty sure theTargetvalue can be a different data value as well).The format should look like this:
+1PID(Target, Current, p, i, d).An example of what this could look like:
PID(0, AngleOfAttack, 0.005, 0.001, 0.0025).@MLGHerobrine Haha, I understand, no problem!
+1@Maosulli Yes.
+1⊥
+1@ReinMcDeer It works quite well actually. It takes a bit of getting used to flying the thing because the elevons tend to induce asymmetric drag while using Pitch and Roll at the same time. It'll sideslip a bit while turning unless you give some yaw input.
+1@ReinMcDeer This is a true flying wing.
+1It uses YawRate and AngleOfSlip programmed into hidden airbrakes.
I also gave it some slack on the stability to have a little more drift (like a pre-fly-by-wire flying wing).
@Maosulli Type this command into the command console:
+1say "your message with quotes"
@32 A soldier saluting. It's a bit chopped on mobile devices.
+1Depends on the plane and propeller specifications (not the engine, just the prop on its own).
+1I'm also by no means an expert on props. These are just basic things to consider.
I'd recommend trying different pitches to see what works best.
Set
+1preventBreakingon the pistons totrue.@BeeEngineer While the M50 was unable to pass Mach 1, the wing design was not the only factor.
+1There have also been several examples of aircraft that had/have delta wings with straight/mostly straight trailing edges, and I can't find sufficient data suggesting that they had significant issues with it.
So while it may present such challenges realistically, it really shouldn't present a large issue if the aircraft is aerodynamically and structurally sound.
If you have an article regarding trailing edge flow in this manner, could you provide a link? I've been unable to find one that addressed this specifically.
Congrats!
+1Este é de longe um dos projetos de aeronaves particulares mais interessantes.
+1Muito bom, gosto muito!
Nota: peço desculpas se estiver usando a tradução errada. Corrija-me se eu estiver.
@JustWingIt See that drop-down button on the top-right corner of a comment/post? Click that, and it gives you options, one of which is the
+1Reportoption.@caelanthekow As long as it's not a server full of other somewhat high part aircraft, it should be fine.
+1800 parts is the generally accepted limit.
T
+1Two things that could be fixed would be the weight and drag. For a glider of this size it's pretty heavy. The drag points are a bit high as well. Low weight and low drag are key factors for making an efficient glider.
+1If you want post-stall capability without solely relying on TVC, then the best way would probably be to make the aircraft unstable and add fly-by-wire stability.
+1@ehtishamcoop Check the console. If it just says "failed to connect" without further context, then the server is likely full or down. If so, then either wait and try again or connect to the secondary server.
+1@Phox It is... acceptable.
+1T
+1@Airheaddivision Oh. No problem.
+1Aside from that, this is a pretty good build. Looks similar to a Mirage in my opinion.
+1"Take off requires over 370 knots for some reason"
+1Your landing gear is way too far back. It should be positioned as close to the center of mass as possible without causing the aircraft to tip backwards on the ground.
T
+1Congratulations!
+1Well for starters, since geometry is such a fundamental part of aerospace, you could have some geometry related name (for example: Convex Aerospace).
+1
+1I recommend using either Discord or postimages.org for uploading images (if you use postimages.org, be sure to use the "Direct Link" and not the normal "Link", otherwise the image will not appear).
@Mrgoofy Sorry, but I'm currently occupied with my own build at the moment.
+1@CL125 It doesn't update the time until the aircraft finishes publishing.
+1I've spent the past hour working on the description.
Do whatever your passion drives you to do.
+1The community is attracted to whatever they see as being a good build (or, a funny meme).
It works.
+1Very intimidating.
@jamesPLANESii Assuming MP was readjusted to work on mobile devices, the mod itself might work.
+1But that won't solve the issue of limited server capacity. It'd be hard to enjoy MP when the one server that we have (publicly, and functional) is constantly overflowing with so many users.
Now, if mobile users could set up their own servers so that overloading becomes less of an issue, but I'm not sure if mobile devices can act as a server (some might).
This would be easier to solve if we had a wide variety of servers to choose from, but we don't have that luxury at the moment.
Still publishing...
+1I am [the rate at which someone or something is able to move or operate].
Oh my... what have I done this time?
+1⊥
+1@Robomo00119 It can't. As I said in the description it's an unfinished project and it can't perform vertical landings.
+1@Airheaddivision Sure! I can't guarantee that I'll be able to help with every problem, but I'll do what I can.
+1I won't be active for several hours though, so if you tag me during that time I likely won't respond for a little while.
Beautiful.
+1I've always liked the F-104. Not for any particular reason other than its proportions and power. It's just an amazing aircraft in its own way.
@Airheaddivision No problem.
+1