Clever. It would be great for some sort of escape vehicle too.
With the proper mix of engines, vectors and timing you could actually make an "engine" that varies it's output throughout a flight. Not sure why, someone would want to, but it's a neat concept.
@Imakestupidplanes
You would have, eventually.
The only reason I could figure it it out is because I've had a few planes do the same thing so I know of three or four things to check for when it happens. The more you play, the more you run into certain problems, and their solutions.
BTW, I was expecting one of the wings to be 1/1000th off from the other, not the VTOL thing
The problem appears to be with the right wing . VTOL on the right side should be normal, not inverted. You can test this by using VTOL during flight. I changed that and it stopped rolling.
@SimpleMobileEngineering
I don't think I entirly unsteand it either, but as far as I can tell...the rotor applies lift to the gryo (hence why it can fly), and torque (a rotational spin along the rotor's axis). A helicopter counteracts this torque with a tail rotor, but an autogryo doesn't hve a tail rotor, so it must rely on forward movement.
Now usually this torque isn't too bad for an unpowered rotor, but...autogryos tend to be small and light so they don't have a lot if inertia to resit the torque. BTW, you might find that the vehicle climbs a bit better while (slightly) banked.
@SimpleMobileEngineering
I think the spiining you are referring to is a side effect of higher torque from using a helirotor on a low mass aircraft. I don;t think there is an easy fir for it. I've got a two rotor gyro that acts similar. In SP, an autogryo needs the thrust from the prop to override the lift and torque of the rotor. Either that or roll into the turn and dive a little to pick up speed.
Ooh, this one has a few problems.
Oh, and before you read on don't feel bad, most of us have been here and faced the same problems.
1) First off, as UwUDarkDustiness noted, most of the problems stem from the tiny wings on the tail. Attaching wings to the tail puts a lot of stress on the aircraft at high speeds. This causes the aircraft to fly apart. The solution here is to either move the wings forward from the tail (right before the real landing gear seems about right for this design), OR strength the wing by using one structural wings, connecting them together, and possibly bracing it with a bit of fuselage. Move the wings forward is the better option here because of point #2 below.
2) The center of lift (the blue circle when you hit the space bar in build mode) is too far behind the center of mass (the red ball). This causes the aircraft to flip end over end upon take off. The solution for this is the either move the center of lift or the center of mass so that the red ball is only about one ball length's ahead of the blue one. Taking those wings in the back off on the tail and placing them a bit forward (right before the landing gear would solve this (and point #1).
3) The tiny wiglets also aren't strong enough to take the force of flying at speed, and they tear off at around 300 mph. With your powerful engines and the designs need for speed to fly this is a problem. The solution here is to strength the wing. There are a few ways to do this, such as reinforcing the wing by adding some fuselage to act as a brace, but the best solution is probably to use structural wings, and edit them to add control surfaces.
4) Minor quibble but the elevators are reversed. That is most people expect that the aircraft should climb when you pull back on the stick. But, some people prefer it the other way. The solution (if this is a problem for YOU) is to invert the pitch on the forward wings.
Here is a link to a version of the plane that should fly.
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/NkMp31/it-doing-that-anymore-yfwbfbgtis-plane
Up at the top of the page, to the right of the Simpleplanes logo you should see a row that goes : VR BUY AIRPLANES VIDEOS FORUMS STUFF and then your ranking and username.
If you click on FORUMS you should be able to go there.
BTW, the reason why it didn't fly before was because the center of mass (the red ball that show up with you hit the space bar during the build process) was too close to the center of lift (the blue ball), which makes it unstable and want to pitch up nose over tail. This is compounded with the plane being tail heavy which makes it want to pitch up.
You kinda want to look at a airplane as a seesaw. Roughly speaking, you want to balance the plane on the center of lift (blue ball) and put the center of mass (red ball) about one half to one ball length ahead of it. That way the forces of weight and lift mostly balance out. That's not set is stone and there are ways to get around this, but it's a good rule to start off with.
I "fixed" (well partially fixed) this by replace your nosecone with a a couple of pieces of fuselage and which I could add weight to. This shifted the center of mass forward enough that it flies, but it still is a bit tail heavy.
Other ways you can improve on this this would be to somehow reduce the weight in the tail section, moving the wings further back, or angle the horizontal stabilizers of the tail upwards to create a force to push the tail section up.
@PPLLAANNEE I wish someone would do a tutorial on just how to embed the custom images into SP. I've tired a few different ways and nothing seems to work, and I'm stuck with the three standard screenshots.
@that1devil
Do what you like. If you don't like designing and building stuff (and there are times where I hate doing it-"Why's it banking to the left?!!") then don't do it as much and play more. You bought the game to have fun, so do whatever you enjoy.
Whatever you do, don't play the game just for rating points or you'll always be dependent on other players for your enjoyment of the game.
@IndoMaja When I downloaded it I removed the fuel from the tail and scaled the mass down for the tail section a bit until the CoM moved a bit ahead of the CoL.
The problem is that the Center of Mass (the red line) is too close to the Center of Lift (the blue line).
If you reduce the weight in the back of the airplane and/or increase the weight in the front of the aircraft it will take off properly without flipping.
@gigachad The first ones were odd, as were every other one. The rest were even! ;)
Seriously though, the early versions of practically everything seems odd because the designers are focused on getting the thing to work, and optimizing the design happens much later. Typically the design sort of stabilizes into what become well known forms, but...the process doesn't really end. Aircraft are still relatively young forms of transport (120 years), and it's quite possible that the designs we think of as normal today will be horrible archaic a century or two from now. Just look at how ships have changed over the last 500 years. Maybe in the future, autogryos will become ring shaped with the rotor in the middle, a cockpit at the front, and engine and tail at the back?
@WinsWings
I get your point too. A true autogyro needs to by able to fly with the many rotor unpowered and many so-called autogyros posted on SP don't do that.
The problem seems to be that the center of lift is too far back and the tail is too big for the main wing. Try increasing the wingspan to about 24 feet (7.3m) or so, and maybe reduce the tail a little.
Since this looks to be a combat airplane, you also might want to consider adding some elevators to the main wing to give it bit more pitch control (the forward wing lifts up while the tail pushes down) to assist in it's climbs and dives.
@FirstFish83828
If you want I could take out the pre-rotator. It doesn't really help much on this build. During testing I mostly just did AG1 and full throttle and waited until I hit 47 mph and took off.
@FirstFish83828
Sure it does. Once you got the rotors up to speed you hit AG2 again to disengage the clutch and the pre-rotator turns off. You can test this out on the ground.
Basically the propeller and the rotors are never powered at the same time.
@FirstFish83828
No, it's a pre-rotator. Many, if not most autogyros use the power of the engine to pre-spin the rotor blades before take off to shorten the takeoff run.
For example, check this out youtube video at about the 2:50 mark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu_y0angRqY
You can take off and fly this without turning on the pre-rotator. Just start off with AG1 and throttle and it should take off at around 47 MPH.
@mlksback You might be able to get away with one or two degrees. It probably won't completely stabilize the airplane (It didn't when I tried it), but it might be enough to work with some other method.
If it makes you feel better you're not really cheating by adding other stabilization. Simpleplane physics are not quite the same as real world physics and often we have to tweak a few things in game to get them to work like the real thing.
@BlackGearCompany
It really depends on what you are trying to do with it. Some things are easier, others not so much but you get better at them as you use them again and again. It can also be frusting when something that looks like it should work doesn't, and you have to look it over ans figure out what you did wrong.
It;s not all or nothing though. I suggest that you try out one or two features at first to see how it all works and then add more things as you get more conformable with it. It really helps if you got something you are trying to do and work to figure how to do it rather than just do random stuff.
This is pretty amazing for a game for building simple airplanes. It even handles the planets with eccentric orbits correctly.
+1Clever. It would be great for some sort of escape vehicle too.
With the proper mix of engines, vectors and timing you could actually make an "engine" that varies it's output throughout a flight. Not sure why, someone would want to, but it's a neat concept.
+1Thanks. I think I'll try.
+1The thing has a great body for a seaplane. I extend the fuselage a little and tapered the end a little and got the take off speed down to around 160.
+1@Imakestupidplanes
You would have, eventually.
The only reason I could figure it it out is because I've had a few planes do the same thing so I know of three or four things to check for when it happens. The more you play, the more you run into certain problems, and their solutions.
BTW, I was expecting one of the wings to be 1/1000th off from the other, not the VTOL thing
@Imakestupidplanes
Credit yourself, it's your plane. You did the work. I just helped a little.
The problem appears to be with the right wing . VTOL on the right side should be normal, not inverted. You can test this by using VTOL during flight. I changed that and it stopped rolling.
@SimpleMobileEngineering
I don't think I entirly unsteand it either, but as far as I can tell...the rotor applies lift to the gryo (hence why it can fly), and torque (a rotational spin along the rotor's axis). A helicopter counteracts this torque with a tail rotor, but an autogryo doesn't hve a tail rotor, so it must rely on forward movement.
Now usually this torque isn't too bad for an unpowered rotor, but...autogryos tend to be small and light so they don't have a lot if inertia to resit the torque. BTW, you might find that the vehicle climbs a bit better while (slightly) banked.
@SimpleMobileEngineering
I think the spiining you are referring to is a side effect of higher torque from using a helirotor on a low mass aircraft. I don;t think there is an easy fir for it. I've got a two rotor gyro that acts similar. In SP, an autogryo needs the thrust from the prop to override the lift and torque of the rotor. Either that or roll into the turn and dive a little to pick up speed.
Nice autogryo! It's got all the basics right.
@Observer404 Aw. I was gonna give you a good deal, too. You could have had it for cost,
Nice!
It has a certain elegance at 34 parts. It looks almost ultra streamlined.
Ooh, this one has a few problems.
Oh, and before you read on don't feel bad, most of us have been here and faced the same problems.
1) First off, as UwUDarkDustiness noted, most of the problems stem from the tiny wings on the tail. Attaching wings to the tail puts a lot of stress on the aircraft at high speeds. This causes the aircraft to fly apart. The solution here is to either move the wings forward from the tail (right before the real landing gear seems about right for this design), OR strength the wing by using one structural wings, connecting them together, and possibly bracing it with a bit of fuselage. Move the wings forward is the better option here because of point #2 below.
2) The center of lift (the blue circle when you hit the space bar in build mode) is too far behind the center of mass (the red ball). This causes the aircraft to flip end over end upon take off. The solution for this is the either move the center of lift or the center of mass so that the red ball is only about one ball length's ahead of the blue one. Taking those wings in the back off on the tail and placing them a bit forward (right before the landing gear would solve this (and point #1).
3) The tiny wiglets also aren't strong enough to take the force of flying at speed, and they tear off at around 300 mph. With your powerful engines and the designs need for speed to fly this is a problem. The solution here is to strength the wing. There are a few ways to do this, such as reinforcing the wing by adding some fuselage to act as a brace, but the best solution is probably to use structural wings, and edit them to add control surfaces.
4) Minor quibble but the elevators are reversed. That is most people expect that the aircraft should climb when you pull back on the stick. But, some people prefer it the other way. The solution (if this is a problem for YOU) is to invert the pitch on the forward wings.
Here is a link to a version of the plane that should fly.
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/NkMp31/it-doing-that-anymore-yfwbfbgtis-plane
Nice shark
@Player7961
You're welcome. Most of us have been there.
BTW, my first dozen or so aircraft all went "boom" on the runway.
Up at the top of the page, to the right of the Simpleplanes logo you should see a row that goes : VR BUY AIRPLANES VIDEOS FORUMS STUFF and then your ranking and username.
If you click on FORUMS you should be able to go there.
Okay
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/8oAg2E/Player-7961s-aircraft
Hi, welcome to simpleplanes.
BTW, the reason why it didn't fly before was because the center of mass (the red ball that show up with you hit the space bar during the build process) was too close to the center of lift (the blue ball), which makes it unstable and want to pitch up nose over tail. This is compounded with the plane being tail heavy which makes it want to pitch up.
You kinda want to look at a airplane as a seesaw. Roughly speaking, you want to balance the plane on the center of lift (blue ball) and put the center of mass (red ball) about one half to one ball length ahead of it. That way the forces of weight and lift mostly balance out. That's not set is stone and there are ways to get around this, but it's a good rule to start off with.
I "fixed" (well partially fixed) this by replace your nosecone with a a couple of pieces of fuselage and which I could add weight to. This shifted the center of mass forward enough that it flies, but it still is a bit tail heavy.
Other ways you can improve on this this would be to somehow reduce the weight in the tail section, moving the wings further back, or angle the horizontal stabilizers of the tail upwards to create a force to push the tail section up.
Hope that helped.
An actual autogyro. Not bad for an early build.
@LonelySea22
LOL! I'll send you a link to my current build. It's still a work in progress but it flies.
@LonelySea22
Glad you like it. BTW does "Little Nellie" ring a bell?
@KornAerospace
I know. SAAB 29.
@KornAerospace
That's exactly what I thought when I saw the US one in white.
Nice autogyro
@PPLLAANNEE I wish someone would do a tutorial on just how to embed the custom images into SP. I've tired a few different ways and nothing seems to work, and I'm stuck with the three standard screenshots.
@that1devil
Do what you like. If you don't like designing and building stuff (and there are times where I hate doing it-"Why's it banking to the left?!!") then don't do it as much and play more. You bought the game to have fun, so do whatever you enjoy.
Whatever you do, don't play the game just for rating points or you'll always be dependent on other players for your enjoyment of the game.
@IndoMaja When I downloaded it I removed the fuel from the tail and scaled the mass down for the tail section a bit until the CoM moved a bit ahead of the CoL.
The problem is that the Center of Mass (the red line) is too close to the Center of Lift (the blue line).
If you reduce the weight in the back of the airplane and/or increase the weight in the front of the aircraft it will take off properly without flipping.
This is a very nice engine. I hope you get more credit for your work.
Wow, it flies really well, especially for a plane that flies backwards and upside down :)
Nice seaplane.
@Sympathetic
Is this any better?
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/dES0Y3/lego-fighter
@WinsWings Thanks, but suspect it will be a bit of a disappointment. Others have built much better "flappers".
@WinsWings Ooh, I like this one. Have you considered giving it four rotors?
@gigachad The first ones were odd, as were every other one. The rest were even! ;)
Seriously though, the early versions of practically everything seems odd because the designers are focused on getting the thing to work, and optimizing the design happens much later. Typically the design sort of stabilizes into what become well known forms, but...the process doesn't really end. Aircraft are still relatively young forms of transport (120 years), and it's quite possible that the designs we think of as normal today will be horrible archaic a century or two from now. Just look at how ships have changed over the last 500 years. Maybe in the future, autogryos will become ring shaped with the rotor in the middle, a cockpit at the front, and engine and tail at the back?
@FirstLandFish83828
Urgent care? Sorry to hear that. Get well, the aircraft can wait.
@WinsWings
I get your point too. A true autogyro needs to by able to fly with the many rotor unpowered and many so-called autogyros posted on SP don't do that.
@FirstFish83828
Fair enough. It's just that I doubt you're going to get more entries. No love for autogryos. :(
@FirstFish83828
With only 3 entries maybe you should extend the deadline, and maybe lift the one entry per person limit? Not a lot of people build autogryos here.
The problem seems to be that the center of lift is too far back and the tail is too big for the main wing. Try increasing the wingspan to about 24 feet (7.3m) or so, and maybe reduce the tail a little.
Since this looks to be a combat airplane, you also might want to consider adding some elevators to the main wing to give it bit more pitch control (the forward wing lifts up while the tail pushes down) to assist in it's climbs and dives.
@FirstFish83828
If you want I could take out the pre-rotator. It doesn't really help much on this build. During testing I mostly just did AG1 and full throttle and waited until I hit 47 mph and took off.
@FirstFish83828
Sure it does. Once you got the rotors up to speed you hit AG2 again to disengage the clutch and the pre-rotator turns off. You can test this out on the ground.
Basically the propeller and the rotors are never powered at the same time.
@FirstFish83828
No, it's a pre-rotator. Many, if not most autogyros use the power of the engine to pre-spin the rotor blades before take off to shorten the takeoff run.
For example, check this out youtube video at about the 2:50 mark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu_y0angRqY
You can take off and fly this without turning on the pre-rotator. Just start off with AG1 and throttle and it should take off at around 47 MPH.
@mlksback You might be able to get away with one or two degrees. It probably won't completely stabilize the airplane (It didn't when I tried it), but it might be enough to work with some other method.
If it makes you feel better you're not really cheating by adding other stabilization. Simpleplane physics are not quite the same as real world physics and often we have to tweak a few things in game to get them to work like the real thing.
@BlackGearCompany
It really depends on what you are trying to do with it. Some things are easier, others not so much but you get better at them as you use them again and again. It can also be frusting when something that looks like it should work doesn't, and you have to look it over ans figure out what you did wrong.
It;s not all or nothing though. I suggest that you try out one or two features at first to see how it all works and then add more things as you get more conformable with it. It really helps if you got something you are trying to do and work to figure how to do it rather than just do random stuff.
This is fun to fly
Nice seagyro!
This made my day!
Nice. It's a shame that most people won't be familiar with the show, or you'd get more credit.