@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.
While you designed it as a fighter, I think this plane excels as a Strike aircraft. I took off the Air to Air missiles and put in SIX Cleavers and this plane took off and flew with no problem. Easy to sink the Beast and it's escorts.
@Zyvx Glad you like it. I did have a couple of variants, trying to expand on the passenger compartment. I was thinking that it could work as a sort of futuristic Sky Ambulance/Life-flight or, with a redesign, as a modular plan that could swap out passenger and cargo sections.
@Mickk I'm on high physics. Typically when a plan flies apart it's at low altitude where the air is densest. I put this thing through it's paces at it holds up and performs nicely. Maybe it's a platform issue? I'm on a PC.
Odd, it doesn't blow up when I fly it. I've tired high speed down low, 1000mph at 65K and even a power dive with a pull up near the water. It's rock solid.
Some questions:
-What altitude does it blow up at?
-Do the wings start flexing wildly before it blows up?
-What Physics settings do you use?,
-Are you using the time warp mod?
@BlackhattAircraft
Yeah it is a cool craze. It's a neat concept and the fighter (of which there are at least two separate designs and several variants) is mostly workable in SP. Landing on the carrier aircraft is the tricky part.
I'm working on a Boeing 985 "Arrow"now, and hope to be ale to use it as a base frame for the Variable Wing, Canard, Delta Wing and Vitac versions.
@BlackhattAircraft
LOL! There is always a Bf-109 craze. It's one of a handful of aircraft that people are always making version of. A6Ms, Bf-109s, P-38s, Spitfires, P-51s. We get then every week. Not that that's a bad thing.
@DustyT33 Yeah, I took a day off from SP that turned into a couple of weeks and then into a few months.
This plane you have here is very smooth for a flapper. Not quite as fast as what we were doing when I went AWOL, but much more stable and practical.
@AWESOMENESS360 Good Luck. It looks to be a bit tricky. You've got to keep the plane stable, rprovide lift and forward momentum, with just the one prop. I suggest you add a gyro.
It's ovespeeding because the prop blades are in a flat pitch. If you manually change the pitch of blades by as much as 10% they won't overspeed anymore.
I don;t think it's too light or too maneuverable. I think your vertical stabilizer is too small. When I fly the plane it doesn't like to go straight, it like to weave left to right and back again. I think that's part of why the plane "flips sideways." I also think that because you use your entire tail for a horizontal stabilizer, the plane looses stability when pitching up or down.
I'd suggest trying a larger vertical tail, and add a strip of wing in front of each horizontal section that doesn't move when the rest of the tail pitches. I think those two changes would make the plane more stable and help eliminate the jerking motion.
@F104Deathtrap I thought the MIG-25 was an Interceptor that was converted to a recon plane when the aircraft it was designed and built to shoot down (the XB-70 Valkyrie) got canceled, not a fighter.
@Nerfenthusiast But that's just it- mock dogfights. The F-15's track record is proven in real combat. The F-22's hasn't yet.
Yes, most of the F-15s victories were against lesser trained pilots-that's pretty much the whole point behind having such training programs.
I think the reason why there isn't much support for the earlier prop fighters is that jet fighters, radar, and missiles trump most of the earlier planes abilities.
@XjayIndustrys If you know how to pilot a jet fighter and operate the weapons, I doubt you'd lose to a expert pilot in a B-17 every single time. If you are at least competent, you should be able to get a missile lock and shoot the B-17 out of the sky at least some of the time without his even knowing that you were there. Radar and dogfighting missiles are game changers.
I agree with the F-15 Eagle as the greatest fighter. It's never been beaten in actual combat, and has been in service for over 40 years. While the F-22 might be a superior fighter, it's yet to be proven in actual combat.
Yes, the human factor is more important than the aircraft, and training goes a long way towards that, too.. That's the major reason why US, Brit and Israeli pilots tend to be superior pilots.
But the aircraft is certainly a factor, especially when training and skill are close. If it wasn't the case, there would be no need to replace older aircraft with newer designs. If it were just the human factor the US could still be flying Century Series aircraft as their main fighters and interceptors.
It's nice like your last one. You might want to try and see if you can put the main vehicle (car) on the bottom and get rid of the landing gear. You could use the car wheels for landing ear. Not only with this reduce weight and drag, but it would probably shorten the take off distance, since the car engine could contribute to the take off speed.
The tilt to the right is caused by the bits of fuselage covering the horizontal stabilizers in the back. They are not lined up exactly the same due to a bug that happens sometimes in SP,You can test that by taking those two pieces off of the plane. To fit it, try redoing those coverings.
The poor take off performance is probably do the the high wing loading. Take off speed is tied to this. If you want to lower this speed then you need to lower the wing loading, either by reducing weight, increasing the wing area, or both. For comparison a tiny wing fighter, the F-104 has a wing loading of around 105lbs/ft2. If you want to keep the same basic wing shape, you can make the wings slightly wider and longer and then nudge the wing into the fuselage a little to hide some of it.
You could also improve take off performance by adding flaps (they can lower take off speed) by making the front gear higher than the rear gear (that pitches the wings at an angle and increases their lift during take off runs), or by changing the airfoil shape of the wings. Flat Bottom wings will give you more lift at the expense of top speed.
@AWESOMENESS360 Because the winner was chosen by a judge (Trijets), not by which plane got the most upvotes. . Congratulations! Break open the confetti.
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.
While you designed it as a fighter, I think this plane excels as a Strike aircraft. I took off the Air to Air missiles and put in SIX Cleavers and this plane took off and flew with no problem. Easy to sink the Beast and it's escorts.
@Zyvx Do you think you could land this? https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/uFvWzQ/Folding-VTOL-miniplane
@Zyvx Glad you like it. I did have a couple of variants, trying to expand on the passenger compartment. I was thinking that it could work as a sort of futuristic Sky Ambulance/Life-flight or, with a redesign, as a modular plan that could swap out passenger and cargo sections.
@Mickk I'm on high physics. Typically when a plan flies apart it's at low altitude where the air is densest. I put this thing through it's paces at it holds up and performs nicely. Maybe it's a platform issue? I'm on a PC.
Odd, it doesn't blow up when I fly it. I've tired high speed down low, 1000mph at 65K and even a power dive with a pull up near the water. It's rock solid.
Some questions:
-What altitude does it blow up at?
-Do the wings start flexing wildly before it blows up?
-What Physics settings do you use?,
-Are you using the time warp mod?
@BlackhattAircraft
Yeah it is a cool craze. It's a neat concept and the fighter (of which there are at least two separate designs and several variants) is mostly workable in SP. Landing on the carrier aircraft is the tricky part.
I'm working on a Boeing 985 "Arrow"now, and hope to be ale to use it as a base frame for the Variable Wing, Canard, Delta Wing and Vitac versions.
@BlackhattAircraft
LOL! There is always a Bf-109 craze. It's one of a handful of aircraft that people are always making version of. A6Ms, Bf-109s, P-38s, Spitfires, P-51s. We get then every week. Not that that's a bad thing.
At least its not more Bf109s!
I wonder if there will be a craze to make Northrop N353/P900 fighters too.
This is a pretty nice acrostar
Re: "the turning problem", are you referring to the fact that it can only bank 70 degrees or that it wobbles in flight?
Not bad. You might want to balance off the weight in the left and right "pods" but it's still a nice plane.
@DustyT33 Yeah, I took a day off from SP that turned into a couple of weeks and then into a few months.
This plane you have here is very smooth for a flapper. Not quite as fast as what we were doing when I went AWOL, but much more stable and practical.
@AWESOMENESS360 Good Luck. It looks to be a bit tricky. You've got to keep the plane stable, rprovide lift and forward momentum, with just the one prop. I suggest you add a gyro.
not that bad
It's ovespeeding because the prop blades are in a flat pitch. If you manually change the pitch of blades by as much as 10% they won't overspeed anymore.
It's pretty.
Nice
Nice. You've been busy. It makes a good bat boat too.
This one is really something special.
LOL! Thanks. I guess I can stop planning for world domination now.
@Rub3n213 http://www.simpleplanes.com/a/ED8DPu/temp
I don;t think it's too light or too maneuverable. I think your vertical stabilizer is too small. When I fly the plane it doesn't like to go straight, it like to weave left to right and back again. I think that's part of why the plane "flips sideways." I also think that because you use your entire tail for a horizontal stabilizer, the plane looses stability when pitching up or down.
I'd suggest trying a larger vertical tail, and add a strip of wing in front of each horizontal section that doesn't move when the rest of the tail pitches. I think those two changes would make the plane more stable and help eliminate the jerking motion.
@F104Deathtrap I thought the MIG-25 was an Interceptor that was converted to a recon plane when the aircraft it was designed and built to shoot down (the XB-70 Valkyrie) got canceled, not a fighter.
@Nerfenthusiast But that's just it- mock dogfights. The F-15's track record is proven in real combat. The F-22's hasn't yet.
Yes, most of the F-15s victories were against lesser trained pilots-that's pretty much the whole point behind having such training programs.
I think the reason why there isn't much support for the earlier prop fighters is that jet fighters, radar, and missiles trump most of the earlier planes abilities.
@XjayIndustrys If you know how to pilot a jet fighter and operate the weapons, I doubt you'd lose to a expert pilot in a B-17 every single time. If you are at least competent, you should be able to get a missile lock and shoot the B-17 out of the sky at least some of the time without his even knowing that you were there. Radar and dogfighting missiles are game changers.
I agree with the F-15 Eagle as the greatest fighter. It's never been beaten in actual combat, and has been in service for over 40 years. While the F-22 might be a superior fighter, it's yet to be proven in actual combat.
Yes, the human factor is more important than the aircraft, and training goes a long way towards that, too.. That's the major reason why US, Brit and Israeli pilots tend to be superior pilots.
But the aircraft is certainly a factor, especially when training and skill are close. If it wasn't the case, there would be no need to replace older aircraft with newer designs. If it were just the human factor the US could still be flying Century Series aircraft as their main fighters and interceptors.
It's nice like your last one. You might want to try and see if you can put the main vehicle (car) on the bottom and get rid of the landing gear. You could use the car wheels for landing ear. Not only with this reduce weight and drag, but it would probably shorten the take off distance, since the car engine could contribute to the take off speed.
Very Impressive
Fantastic looking design.
The tilt to the right is caused by the bits of fuselage covering the horizontal stabilizers in the back. They are not lined up exactly the same due to a bug that happens sometimes in SP,You can test that by taking those two pieces off of the plane. To fit it, try redoing those coverings.
The poor take off performance is probably do the the high wing loading. Take off speed is tied to this. If you want to lower this speed then you need to lower the wing loading, either by reducing weight, increasing the wing area, or both. For comparison a tiny wing fighter, the F-104 has a wing loading of around 105lbs/ft2. If you want to keep the same basic wing shape, you can make the wings slightly wider and longer and then nudge the wing into the fuselage a little to hide some of it.
You could also improve take off performance by adding flaps (they can lower take off speed) by making the front gear higher than the rear gear (that pitches the wings at an angle and increases their lift during take off runs), or by changing the airfoil shape of the wings. Flat Bottom wings will give you more lift at the expense of top speed.
This is a pretty respectable bit of design and engineering, with the way the sections detach safely from the main vehicle.
@AWESOMENESS360 Because the winner was chosen by a judge (Trijets), not by which plane got the most upvotes. . Congratulations! Break open the confetti.
Nice vectored thrust engines, and I love the panther on the sides of the engines.