Thanks for the challenge!
I really enjoyed building for this challenge, and this is also my first challenge that I actually made it to the end, last time I was disqualified for making a goofy wingless tubular seaplane, and one other was cancelled lol
@BaconEggs Aha! Good luck on the Flight Model! Working on Flight Models is both fun and frustrating in SP, I hope all goes well, and may I please be tagged in the future post, whether it be a development post or the final post? (Only if it is something you do). I love your Tomcat!
I read your pinned comment that the flight model is still under development, but about the flat spin at the end, it seems that the CoM is not far back enough that the aircraft eventually noses down and recovers the spin (right before it dips into the water).
.
I doubt that you are not aware of this (you are a much greater builder than I am), but I just wanted to mention it just in case. I had to struggle with my Draken to make it flat spin too, ended up not really making the flat spin work since I couldn't move the CoM any further behind. (Also includes CoL adjustment but whatever lol)
@MTakach
It is crucial that you remove all collision responses in xml when building a landing gear (remove collision on both the landing gear parts and the landing gear bay), and parts like shock/rotator/pistons are recommended to have multiplied mass for strength.
If the problem persists, tweak the traction of the wheel by xml (foward/sideway traction etc), and this takes some trial and error.
@Zal777
Arcadish flight models are great fun too, but I like realistic flight models much more.
.
I respect your preference, and everyone is entitled to their own choices of liking.
Have a great day and keep building!
@Zal777
Limiting the Gs of an aircraft is quite common in SimplePlanes, in order to achieve realistic performance.
.
You are a relatively new player, so I understand, but many people put great effort to limit the Gs of their aircraft with funky tree codes or other many methods.
.
But of course, it is a preference whether you want a realistic performance or not.
.
Some may enjoy having realistic flight models, some may prefer to not. Totally understandable, have a great day.
@Zal777
As mentioned in my Draken post, I have checked out your build. Not going to lie, it's a cool design with some vibrant colours!
.
However, your build exceeds 20Gs in a barrel roll, and I don't see how that is realistic at all.
@Zal777
Your plane that you sent me exceeds 20Gs of pull in a barrel roll.
I don't think that is realistic.
.
Also, it seems that you are here to judge my build and advertise your own stuff. Please don't.
@Zal777
.
Arcade styled flight simulators represent flight characteristics in a comfortable and simple way. I would say this is more of the 'correct' representation.
.
But sure, you might not like it.
.
But I hope you understood that this is a fully intentional feature that I put in with quite some effort.
@Zal777
I think you have a misunderstanding of how flight characteristics of such aircrafts in real life perform.
Also, this build reaches around 1,400~1,500km/h at sea level, matching the specifications of the MiG-29.
.
I also have to thank edensk for the flight model, he is considered one of the best realistic flight model builders in SP, has great knowledge in funky trees.
He has put great effort into the flight model.
About the instabilities:
.
Let me explain again. Similar complaints have been received before. Also, the SAAB J-35 Draken does not have flaps, just as most other double delta/delta wing aircrafts.
.
The J-35D Draken is unstable by its very nature.
.
The CoM of the Draken is shifted to the rear of the aircraft (not to exclude most of the body being a massive LERX), making it unstable, and prone to unrecoverable flat spins (Some Drakens were equipped with chutes to deploy at air when caught in a flat spin)
The cobra maneuver of the Draken wasn't on purpose, it was rather considered as a flaw. But with these intentional instabilities and 'flaws' the Draken came with excellent maneuverability.
.
The Draken in reality is even more unstable, much easier to stall and fall into a flatspin. Most modern fighters are intentionally built to be unstable (relaxed instability), but controlled by a flight computer to be stable in flight. The Draken does not have such technology. (At least the Draken's CoL is behind the CoM, the F-16 for example has the CoM behind the CoL).
.
To put it another way, Draken pilots had to 'trim' the aircraft to do the same maneuvers in which other aircraft required the whole flight stick to be involved.
.
TL;DR I would go as far to say that my Draken isn't unstable enough, and I wouldn't try controlling this with a keyboard.
.
Even aircrafts that are more stable than the Draken in real life does not control like you would imagine in real life.
.
It took some effort to make it purposefully unstable whilst flyable in SP.
I hope you understood.
The fuel consumption is based on the Volvo RM6C / RollsRoyce Avon 300 series, which burns about ~30Ls of fuel per minute.
It will decrease by ~3% together with the amount of thrust every 1000 meters.
And yes I was lazy about the landing gears lol (I didn't even add anything in the landing gear bay too, not to mention missing details in the cockpit), and as I mentioned, please consider it a WiP build.
As a double delta wing aircraft, landing should be done at very low speeds, and the overall landing experience is bollocks as it was in real life, actually, a bit more shittier since I was also lazy with balancing the landing gear shocks. Best solution would be to release the drogue shoot as soon as possible. Sorry about that, too much laziness.
It is supposed to be that way, the CoM of the Draken is shifted to the rear of the aircraft (not to exclude most of the body being a massive LERX), making it unstable, and prone to unrecoverable flat spins (Some Drakens were equipped with chutes to deploy at air when caught in a flat spin)
The cobra maneuver of the Draken wasn't on purpose, it was rather considered as a flaw. But with these intentional instabilities and 'flaws' the Draken came with excellent maneuverability.
.
The Draken in reality is even more unstable, much easier to stall and fall into a flatspin. Most modern fighters are intentionally built to be unstable (relaxed instability), but controlled by a flight computer to be stable in flight. The Draken does not have such technology. (At least the Draken's CoL is behind the CoM, the F-16 for example has the CoM behind the CoL).
.
To put it another way, Draken pilots had to 'trim' the aircraft to do the same maneuvers in which other aircraft required the whole flight stick to be involved.
.
TL;DR I would go as far to say that my Draken isn't unstable enough, and I wouldn't try controlling this with a keyboard.
@L1nus
Thanks for helping.
I looked into this guy's page, most of his posts are successors to other aircrafts, most with minimal changes similar to this post, he kept the auto-credit so I guess there's nothing I can do about it
@L1nus @Stephen22
Well... I already have made several variations linked down in the description (of the original post) with different schemes, and low part counts...
The 1097 part and 952 part versions already have their RB-24Js removed, and I don't think it is hard for anyone to do it themselves.
@WinsWings Thanks! I really enjoyed your challenge.
+2Thanks for the challenge!
+1I really enjoyed building for this challenge, and this is also my first challenge that I actually made it to the end, last time I was disqualified for making a goofy wingless tubular seaplane, and one other was cancelled lol
@Angelo135YouTube
Yeah, especially the cockpit. It's basically a WiP build.
Is the wing/rotator set to have mass higher than 0?
+2Have you used
Wing-2instead ofWing-3?@BaconEggs Aha! Good luck on the Flight Model! Working on Flight Models is both fun and frustrating in SP, I hope all goes well, and may I please be tagged in the future post, whether it be a development post or the final post? (Only if it is something you do). I love your Tomcat!
@Noob101
Thanks.
.
I am still waiting to upload my Albatros D.Va from 2021.
@Corn8 Thanks!
Superb
I read your pinned comment that the flight model is still under development, but about the flat spin at the end, it seems that the CoM is not far back enough that the aircraft eventually noses down and recovers the spin (right before it dips into the water).
.
I doubt that you are not aware of this (you are a much greater builder than I am), but I just wanted to mention it just in case. I had to struggle with my Draken to make it flat spin too, ended up not really making the flat spin work since I couldn't move the CoM any further behind. (Also includes CoL adjustment but whatever lol)
@Boeig Thanks! I hope you enjoy it!
@Noob101 thanks
+1@frogbot4000 Thanks!
@iQOOZ7 It's a Mach 3 bomber, look at the wings, man. Smaller than a F-104's lol
@MTakach
It is crucial that you remove all collision responses in xml when building a landing gear (remove collision on both the landing gear parts and the landing gear bay), and parts like shock/rotator/pistons are recommended to have multiplied mass for strength.
If the problem persists, tweak the traction of the wheel by xml (foward/sideway traction etc), and this takes some trial and error.
@WinsWings Thanks! I really enjoyed building this one!
@DISHWASHER2005 Didn't know that users with same points could spotlight eachother huh lol, also, thanks!
@CrazyCatZe Your upcoming seaplane looks awesome! Also thanks, but I think your build also shares the same chance of winning, or even more!
@CrazyCatZe Thanks! Your Water Albatross looks amazing! I've been building a Albatros D.Va too!
@WinsWings Thanks!
@Graingy X-15 and SR-71 in a nutshell
@Graingy lmao
+1@BaconAircraft Could I please have this build a successor to this challenge please? Thanks.
@Noob101 2700? That's pretty good for a mobile device to handle.
@Noob101 Thanks! Matching the part count was quite tricky.
+1Thanks to @QuiteInactiveWhiteBread for the inspiration and feedback!
Requested Tags:
+1@Speedhunter
@Noob101
@WinsWings
+1Hi, this is my entry to your challenge. I am awaiting for this post to be a successor to your challenge post. Thanks.
@Seeras Could I please have this build a successor to this challenge please? Thanks.
@Pur000 It's already out lol
@QuiteInactiveWhiteBread
Care to try an early version?
@QuiteInactiveWhiteBread
Yup, especially the wing designs. They're so tiny and I loved them.
Inspired by a mix of Leduc 0.21, X-15, @QuiteInactiveWhiteBread 's SP-D5 and stuff
+1@Zal777
+1Arcadish flight models are great fun too, but I like realistic flight models much more.
.
I respect your preference, and everyone is entitled to their own choices of liking.
Have a great day and keep building!
@Zal777
Limiting the Gs of an aircraft is quite common in SimplePlanes, in order to achieve realistic performance.
.
You are a relatively new player, so I understand, but many people put great effort to limit the Gs of their aircraft with funky tree codes or other many methods.
.
But of course, it is a preference whether you want a realistic performance or not.
.
Some may enjoy having realistic flight models, some may prefer to not. Totally understandable, have a great day.
@Zal777
+1As mentioned in my Draken post, I have checked out your build. Not going to lie, it's a cool design with some vibrant colours!
.
However, your build exceeds 20Gs in a barrel roll, and I don't see how that is realistic at all.
@Zal777
Your plane that you sent me exceeds 20Gs of pull in a barrel roll.
I don't think that is realistic.
.
Also, it seems that you are here to judge my build and advertise your own stuff. Please don't.
@Zal777
.
Arcade styled flight simulators represent flight characteristics in a comfortable and simple way. I would say this is more of the 'correct' representation.
.
But sure, you might not like it.
.
But I hope you understood that this is a fully intentional feature that I put in with quite some effort.
@Zal777
I think you have a misunderstanding of how flight characteristics of such aircrafts in real life perform.
Also, this build reaches around 1,400~1,500km/h at sea level, matching the specifications of the MiG-29.
.
I also have to thank edensk for the flight model, he is considered one of the best realistic flight model builders in SP, has great knowledge in funky trees.
He has put great effort into the flight model.
@Zal777
It seems you have a misunderstanding of the unstable nature of the Draken.
.
Please read the pinned comment, and also, it does have trim.
@Zal777
About the instabilities:
.
Let me explain again. Similar complaints have been received before. Also, the SAAB J-35 Draken does not have flaps, just as most other double delta/delta wing aircrafts.
.
The J-35D Draken is unstable by its very nature.
.
The CoM of the Draken is shifted to the rear of the aircraft (not to exclude most of the body being a massive LERX), making it unstable, and prone to unrecoverable flat spins (Some Drakens were equipped with chutes to deploy at air when caught in a flat spin)
The cobra maneuver of the Draken wasn't on purpose, it was rather considered as a flaw. But with these intentional instabilities and 'flaws' the Draken came with excellent maneuverability.
.
The Draken in reality is even more unstable, much easier to stall and fall into a flatspin. Most modern fighters are intentionally built to be unstable (relaxed instability), but controlled by a flight computer to be stable in flight. The Draken does not have such technology. (At least the Draken's CoL is behind the CoM, the F-16 for example has the CoM behind the CoL).
.
To put it another way, Draken pilots had to 'trim' the aircraft to do the same maneuvers in which other aircraft required the whole flight stick to be involved.
.
TL;DR I would go as far to say that my Draken isn't unstable enough, and I wouldn't try controlling this with a keyboard.
.
Even aircrafts that are more stable than the Draken in real life does not control like you would imagine in real life.
.
It took some effort to make it purposefully unstable whilst flyable in SP.
I hope you understood.
@BagelPlane
The fuel consumption is based on the Volvo RM6C / RollsRoyce Avon 300 series, which burns about ~30Ls of fuel per minute.
It will decrease by ~3% together with the amount of thrust every 1000 meters.
And yes I was lazy about the landing gears lol (I didn't even add anything in the landing gear bay too, not to mention missing details in the cockpit), and as I mentioned, please consider it a WiP build.
As a double delta wing aircraft, landing should be done at very low speeds, and the overall landing experience is bollocks as it was in real life, actually, a bit more shittier since I was also lazy with balancing the landing gear shocks. Best solution would be to release the drogue shoot as soon as possible. Sorry about that, too much laziness.
Thanks for the detailed review!
@Baoligao
It is supposed to be that way, the CoM of the Draken is shifted to the rear of the aircraft (not to exclude most of the body being a massive LERX), making it unstable, and prone to unrecoverable flat spins (Some Drakens were equipped with chutes to deploy at air when caught in a flat spin)
The cobra maneuver of the Draken wasn't on purpose, it was rather considered as a flaw. But with these intentional instabilities and 'flaws' the Draken came with excellent maneuverability.
.
The Draken in reality is even more unstable, much easier to stall and fall into a flatspin. Most modern fighters are intentionally built to be unstable (relaxed instability), but controlled by a flight computer to be stable in flight. The Draken does not have such technology. (At least the Draken's CoL is behind the CoM, the F-16 for example has the CoM behind the CoL).
.
To put it another way, Draken pilots had to 'trim' the aircraft to do the same maneuvers in which other aircraft required the whole flight stick to be involved.
.
TL;DR I would go as far to say that my Draken isn't unstable enough, and I wouldn't try controlling this with a keyboard.
@SourDoughBread
Thanks, I've actually thought of abandoning this build many times. Glad I finished it to hear you enjoy it.
@Mousewithamachinegun123
Thanks!
@Stephen22 It's alright, you didn't really have to delete your post, as long as it is credited. Have a good day.
+1@L1nus
+1Thanks for helping.
I looked into this guy's page, most of his posts are successors to other aircrafts, most with minimal changes similar to this post, he kept the auto-credit so I guess there's nothing I can do about it
@L1nus @Stephen22
+1Well... I already have made several variations linked down in the description (of the original post) with different schemes, and low part counts...
The 1097 part and 952 part versions already have their RB-24Js removed, and I don't think it is hard for anyone to do it themselves.
@thatsjustmidofficial Roll is inverted? Which version did you download?
@HOPKINS234 I'll take that as a compliment thanks lol
@Trainzo Thanks. There's definitely more to add though. Consider it as a WiP never to be finished lol