@Viper3000ad
I'm not an expert either, that's why I couldn't fix my old plane. And I agree with you that SkyFly did a good job. That's why I gave it an upvote. I'm just cautioning that sometimes lower weight isn't better for a glider.
Franky the drag from the "open" cockpit probably hurts it the most, but until SP makes transparent glass available it's unavoidable if you want to show the insides.
@Viper3000ad
Not necessarily, The weight also helps to pull the plane forward and that can give it more lift. I drove myself crazy during the last glider challenge trying to duplicate the performance of my first design, which accidentally had fuel in the wings. It wasn't just the weight but the distribution.
Nice, I love Valkyries.
One suggestion: You might want to make some tranformations "one way" to help reduce the chances of someone blowing up their plane by accidentally moving the slider in the wrong direction. That or replace some of the VTOL controls with Activate controls.
I'm sorry but I don't recall the post. I checked the threads I started where I asked about trim:
https://www.simpleplanes.com/Forums/View/836101/Fine-Tune-Control-Surfaces
and
https://www.simpleplanes.com/Forums/View/826231/Variable-Trim-Problem
But I don't see a response from you on either of those threads.
I looked through and Google search posts where we overlapped and as far as I can tell the only time you posted something towards me where I didn't respond was when you commented was in this thread: https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/gftLUg/Scythe
where you posted
"@atgxtg Hmm, high speed + detacher = wobbliness + explosions. You could just use the insta-acceleration feature and pretend it's a catapult...?"
Which I took to be rhetorical.
About the only thing that I posted about you that might have upset you was when I posted that somebody plane couldn't have been based on on of your because it had landing gear, which I meant in jest. (https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/5vT698/Spectre-II)
I'm not saying what you claim didn't happen, only that I'm not aware of it, and can't find it.
I wasn't aware of any anti-SledDriver wagon, nor did intentionally snub you or mean any disrespect. I like you designs and think you made the best SR-71 build in SP.
Sorry If anything I did bothered you in any way, I did not do so deliberately, nor do I Bear you any ill will.
It;'s an interesting design. I like the engine glow. Maybe canards could help with the stability? Especially if they had a touch of dihedral to counterbalance the main wing. But it is a fun plane.
Shouldn't but it did. I am running under sream as the admin, and it was the firewall that caused the problem. I got a pop up from my Firewall/Antivirus that detected a change in simpleplanes.exe and then SP locked up.
I had to disconnect from the internet, disable the web monitoring part of the firewall, start SP offline, exist SP, then turn everything back on and restart SP. At that point the exe files matched and everything's okay.
@humangrenade I thought that too, for a time. I went to a site that checks to see if other sites were down, and at first it said SP was up, probably because the site was intermittent for awhile. A hour later, it said the site was indeed down, and I knew the problem wasn't on my end.
@mikethemark Good luck. Oh, you might want to try using fuselage blocks instead of the "Blocks" you used, as with Fuselage blocks you can not only customize the shape but add fuel and dead weight, which can help you to control where the center of balance ends up. The make sure the center of lift is slightly behind that.
@mikethemark Yeah that's a common problem with VTOL and vectored thrust aircraft, let alone something without wings. What you need to do is balance the craft out perfectly, and position the thrusters equidistantly from the center of mass. It's easier said than done. I've got a vehicle I'm trying to use thrusters just for vertical take off and it's tough because I have to move the thruster every time I change something.
@Lyra You might want to try the 2B. ttps://www.simpleplanes.com/a/w2e8N9/VTOL-Travel-Pod-Mk-2B
It;'s a modest improvement until I get the Mk 3 ready.
BTW, just how slow are you trying to go? I've probably flown this thing as much as anybody and know a few things about handling it at low speeds. A couple of them are counter intuitive, and contrary to what I intended when I designed it. For instance, it's easier to land horizontally than vertically, or that's it best to come in a little on the fast side and then pull up to bleed off speed and trust to the landing gear to absorb the shock.
@OwenFPV I decided to add canards to this to see how it handles. It actually has some pitch now, and enough trim to let the autopilot take over. It's almost fall proof.
Link to Updated Model B: https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/w2e8N9/VTOL-Travel-Pod-Mk-2B
@OwenFPV It would handle better if I put some actual wings on the thing, but a lot of the credit for how it looks should go to SalmASaberhage. I just saw his aircraft and thought that the cockpit would be ideal for this.
I've got a newer version with smaller (they fold flat against the fuselage) in the works, maybe I'll try adding some canards to it.
@SalemASaberhagen Have a look: https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/04mXu0/VTOL-Travel-Pod-Mk-2
For the record, I've been trying to do a version of this without your design for the pod but for some reason none of the replacements fly as well. For some reasopn why design acts like a parachute when I cut power and go into landing mode.
BTW, it should\have auto credited your design. It did when I first posted it, but not when I reuploaded it.
1)First off I strongly suggest changing the front cockpit to the primary-it's probably a major contributor to the control problems and crashes, as the plane isn't centered on the spot you'd expect it to be, and your camera angles are off.
2) Increase the range of motion of the rotators for the engines. I'd say at least 45 degrees, as that's the angle where you get the best trajectory, which should help with takeoffs and reduce runway distance needed.
Other than that:
3) Adding some Pitch, Roll or Yaw ability to one or more of the gyroscopes , and/or adjusting their stability can give you better control and stability. Or, more commonly, better control or stability.
4) Adding some dihedral,and antihedral to the wings, front and back, will make the plane more stable.
@Mickk Do you mind if I try something really odd with it? I got the idea for a variable geometry ring wing.
Oh, and the ring wing works great with a prop engine, especially with a pair of them.
Yes there is definitely more to this design. I'd say "efficient" is a better description than simple.
@Viper3000ad You should enter this in the No Control Surface Challenge.
@Viper3000ad I'm working on it. I keep overdoing it in the turns and get my feet wet.
Even if it didn't fly, it would be worth an upvote just for the rider. It looks like a person.
Interesting.
@Destroyerz117 Thanks for the fun spaceship to fly. It not every day I get to laser something while telling it to "bite my shiny metal a$$".
It's worth an upvote for the unusual wing/engine arrangement. I don't know if such an arrangement is practical, but it's different.
Impressive detail. It's like Futurama in 3D
@Viper3000ad
I'm not an expert either, that's why I couldn't fix my old plane. And I agree with you that SkyFly did a good job. That's why I gave it an upvote. I'm just cautioning that sometimes lower weight isn't better for a glider.
Franky the drag from the "open" cockpit probably hurts it the most, but until SP makes transparent glass available it's unavoidable if you want to show the insides.
@Viper3000ad
Not necessarily, The weight also helps to pull the plane forward and that can give it more lift. I drove myself crazy during the last glider challenge trying to duplicate the performance of my first design, which accidentally had fuel in the wings. It wasn't just the weight but the distribution.
Nice glider
1
Nice, I love Valkyries.
One suggestion: You might want to make some tranformations "one way" to help reduce the chances of someone blowing up their plane by accidentally moving the slider in the wrong direction. That or replace some of the VTOL controls with Activate controls.
I'm sorry but I don't recall the post. I checked the threads I started where I asked about trim:
https://www.simpleplanes.com/Forums/View/836101/Fine-Tune-Control-Surfaces
and
https://www.simpleplanes.com/Forums/View/826231/Variable-Trim-Problem
But I don't see a response from you on either of those threads.
I looked through and Google search posts where we overlapped and as far as I can tell the only time you posted something towards me where I didn't respond was when you commented was in this thread: https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/gftLUg/Scythe
where you posted
"@atgxtg Hmm, high speed + detacher = wobbliness + explosions. You could just use the insta-acceleration feature and pretend it's a catapult...?"
Which I took to be rhetorical.
About the only thing that I posted about you that might have upset you was when I posted that somebody plane couldn't have been based on on of your because it had landing gear, which I meant in jest. (https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/5vT698/Spectre-II)
I'm not saying what you claim didn't happen, only that I'm not aware of it, and can't find it.
I wasn't aware of any anti-SledDriver wagon, nor did intentionally snub you or mean any disrespect. I like you designs and think you made the best SR-71 build in SP.
Sorry If anything I did bothered you in any way, I did not do so deliberately, nor do I Bear you any ill will.
Nice. I Like the pilot.
It's a fun plane but you got an extra piece of landing strut on the right side
It's pretty.
Gorgeous plane. I love the way the engines glow.
What is a wake-up engine?
It's a nice concept. Giveit a skirt and some bouncy bumpers that extent lower than the blades, and you'd have a good hovercraft.
Nice.
Very nice.
It's not bad, although I think it rolls a little too quickly .
It;'s an interesting design. I like the engine glow. Maybe canards could help with the stability? Especially if they had a touch of dihedral to counterbalance the main wing. But it is a fun plane.
Nice first upload. VTOL and props that transition from vertical to horizontal make for an ambitious start.
Shouldn't but it did. I am running under sream as the admin, and it was the firewall that caused the problem. I got a pop up from my Firewall/Antivirus that detected a change in simpleplanes.exe and then SP locked up.
I had to disconnect from the internet, disable the web monitoring part of the firewall, start SP offline, exist SP, then turn everything back on and restart SP. At that point the exe files matched and everything's okay.
@humangrenade I thought that too, for a time. I went to a site that checks to see if other sites were down, and at first it said SP was up, probably because the site was intermittent for awhile. A hour later, it said the site was indeed down, and I knew the problem wasn't on my end.
@mikethemark Good luck. Oh, you might want to try using fuselage blocks instead of the "Blocks" you used, as with Fuselage blocks you can not only customize the shape but add fuel and dead weight, which can help you to control where the center of balance ends up. The make sure the center of lift is slightly behind that.
@mikethemark Yeah that's a common problem with VTOL and vectored thrust aircraft, let alone something without wings. What you need to do is balance the craft out perfectly, and position the thrusters equidistantly from the center of mass. It's easier said than done. I've got a vehicle I'm trying to use thrusters just for vertical take off and it's tough because I have to move the thruster every time I change something.
@Lyra You might want to try the 2B. ttps://www.simpleplanes.com/a/w2e8N9/VTOL-Travel-Pod-Mk-2B
It;'s a modest improvement until I get the Mk 3 ready.
BTW, just how slow are you trying to go? I've probably flown this thing as much as anybody and know a few things about handling it at low speeds. A couple of them are counter intuitive, and contrary to what I intended when I designed it. For instance, it's easier to land horizontally than vertically, or that's it best to come in a little on the fast side and then pull up to bleed off speed and trust to the landing gear to absorb the shock.
Very nice.
Looks good so far.
@ian920911313 LOL! I throttled up expecting to wait while the pale got up to speed for takeoff, and I nearly choked on my coffee!
It's fun to fly.
Wild ride! You should post a warning about the acceleration!
@OwenFPV I decided to add canards to this to see how it handles. It actually has some pitch now, and enough trim to let the autopilot take over. It's almost fall proof.
Link to Updated Model B: https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/w2e8N9/VTOL-Travel-Pod-Mk-2B
@OwenFPV It would handle better if I put some actual wings on the thing, but a lot of the credit for how it looks should go to SalmASaberhage. I just saw his aircraft and thought that the cockpit would be ideal for this.
I've got a newer version with smaller (they fold flat against the fuselage) in the works, maybe I'll try adding some canards to it.
Could you make two real wheels dummy wheels and turn off collision for them? That way maybe they wouldn't count towards the turn?
@SalemASaberhagen Have a look: https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/04mXu0/VTOL-Travel-Pod-Mk-2
For the record, I've been trying to do a version of this without your design for the pod but for some reason none of the replacements fly as well. For some reasopn why design acts like a parachute when I cut power and go into landing mode.
BTW, it should\have auto credited your design. It did when I first posted it, but not when I reuploaded it.
@Apehorse19
Here you got: https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/N20tVh/Long-Bomb
Let me know if it works. It looks like a torpedo.
How small would you like the bomb to be? I'll scale one for you. Give me an appropriate LxWxH compared to the started bomb.
@mikethemark You're welcome.
Let me guess it was #1 that was causing most of your problems, right? It's what caused me to crash.
Nice design.
1)First off I strongly suggest changing the front cockpit to the primary-it's probably a major contributor to the control problems and crashes, as the plane isn't centered on the spot you'd expect it to be, and your camera angles are off.
2) Increase the range of motion of the rotators for the engines. I'd say at least 45 degrees, as that's the angle where you get the best trajectory, which should help with takeoffs and reduce runway distance needed.
Other than that:
3) Adding some Pitch, Roll or Yaw ability to one or more of the gyroscopes , and/or adjusting their stability can give you better control and stability. Or, more commonly, better control or stability.
4) Adding some dihedral,and antihedral to the wings, front and back, will make the plane more stable.
Good Luck.
And amazingly simply to operate. it just works. No worrying about balance, tipping over, getting up to speed. It just works.
@SalemASaberhagen
I did something really terrible to your design too. If you want I'll put it up so you can see it, but it's really radical.
It's a nice design.
Smooth water takeoffs
@Mickk Do you mind if I try something really odd with it? I got the idea for a variable geometry ring wing.
Oh, and the ring wing works great with a prop engine, especially with a pair of them.
It's a very interesting design.
Fantastic!
Nice. Double so for your first.