@Ruskiwaffle1991
The Lockheed Ventura is a twin-engine medium bomber and patrol bomber of World War II.
The Ventura first entered combat in Europe as a bomber with the RAF in late 1942. Designated PV-1 by the United States Navy (US Navy), it entered combat in 1943 in the Pacific. The bomber was also used by the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF), which designated it the Lockheed B-34 (Lexington) and B-37 as a trainer. British Commonwealth forces also used it in several guises, including antishipping and antisubmarine search and attack.
The Ventura was developed from the Lockheed Model 18 Lodestar transport, as a replacement for the Lockheed Hudson bombers then in service with the Royal Air Force. Used in daylight attacks against occupied Europe, they proved to have weaknesses and were removed from bomber duty and some used for patrols by Coastal Command.
After USAAF monopolization of land-based bombers was removed, the US Navy ordered a revised design which entered service as the PV-2 Harpoon for anti-submarine work.
if 1 is fully customizable (vapour cone size, parameters for variation in drag and lift coefficients in case it affected the physics, or an option to disable said physics) it would be a nice addition, and I'd absolutely love to see 5, it would make interiors much easier to make.
@Kangy what I mean is that this plane gets in some sort of a weird high AoA lock from which you can't recover, not a flat spin or any other real stall motion. My F-100 can stall too but it's very easy to recover.
@ChrisPy I've flown it many times in DCS and seen real footage, I think I know at least slightly what I'm talking about, I'll leave two recordings below.
20 degrees isn't hard to hit if the stall speed and pitch authority are correct, I've made many flight models which can sustain more than 40 without thrust vectoring.
I respect 2Papi2Chulo and think he's both an excellent builder and person, my intention was to show him things that could be improved, for the best of his future builds, and he nicely appreciated my comment.
I don't want to be taken as hostile, lets please keep our conversation civilized.
You have improved a lot, the exterior looks excellent, the cockpit is stunning despite its simplicity, and the flight model is good. I see you did at least a bit of research (flaps, cockpit instruments, etc.), which is awesome.
.
However, it would be much better if half the instruments didn't have visual glitches, worked correctly, and the plane could pull more than 4Gs at 300 knots (pitch authority way too low, I assume you did this to keep loading at high speed at realistic numbers, but you could have reduced pitch authority as speed increases instead).
.
The real thing can pull up to 26° AoA, this barely gets to 11 at 100 knots or 4 at 300ish kts, (because of the pitch authority, once again), which also makes the plane bleed no energy in turns, something that planes do a lot at low and medium speeds.
.
Stall speed feels a bit too low, but that's just nitpicking lol.
Thrust, speed and rollrate are good, which is nice to see.
.
What most annoys me is the flight path vector, it just doesn't work like that, all you had to do is use the variables AngleOfAttack and AngleOfSlip, not pitch angle and whatever else you used.
.
tldr: plenty of small flaws, excellent other than that, big improvement over your previous builds, looking forward to whatever you've got planned next, I recommend you ask someone to test it before uploading (I volunteer).
cheers
looks good... flight model is.... ugh
I'm justn gonna say the most important and huge flaw: top speed, can't go faster that 515 km/h at sea level, which is little more than half the real thing's top speed, is it really that hard for you to build with dragless parts and add some drag at the end?
@asteroidbook345 I can't find any reliable sources that state that, are you sure? All the info I found was that afterburners weren't used on migs until the MiG-17F. I couldn't find any mention of the so called PF variant either (It probably didn't exist).
F-15 thunderbolt II
+2@Ruskiwaffle1991
+1The Lockheed Ventura is a twin-engine medium bomber and patrol bomber of World War II.
The Ventura first entered combat in Europe as a bomber with the RAF in late 1942. Designated PV-1 by the United States Navy (US Navy), it entered combat in 1943 in the Pacific. The bomber was also used by the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF), which designated it the Lockheed B-34 (Lexington) and B-37 as a trainer. British Commonwealth forces also used it in several guises, including antishipping and antisubmarine search and attack.
The Ventura was developed from the Lockheed Model 18 Lodestar transport, as a replacement for the Lockheed Hudson bombers then in service with the Royal Air Force. Used in daylight attacks against occupied Europe, they proved to have weaknesses and were removed from bomber duty and some used for patrols by Coastal Command.
After USAAF monopolization of land-based bombers was removed, the US Navy ordered a revised design which entered service as the PV-2 Harpoon for anti-submarine work.
21,9,15,19,17
good aesthetics, but quite boxy
if 1 is fully customizable (vapour cone size, parameters for variation in drag and lift coefficients in case it affected the physics, or an option to disable said physics) it would be a nice addition, and I'd absolutely love to see 5, it would make interiors much easier to make.
another super hornet mixed with a legacy hornet
mmmm
use that beautiful report button located next to the number of downloads, no need to create a forum post for this
might wanna put the first one in bold instead of `` to fix the problem with comparison characters
+4nope, you can only see it in the game in real time, unfortunately
not possible
@ChiChiWerx I guess you are right
@Kangy similar, except that you can actually recover from that
+1good decision lol
@Kangy what I mean is that this plane gets in some sort of a weird high AoA lock from which you can't recover, not a flat spin or any other real stall motion. My F-100 can stall too but it's very easy to recover.
+1it's like a fish
nope
@ChrisPy I've flown it many times in DCS and seen real footage, I think I know at least slightly what I'm talking about, I'll leave two recordings below.
20 degrees isn't hard to hit if the stall speed and pitch authority are correct, I've made many flight models which can sustain more than 40 without thrust vectoring.
I respect 2Papi2Chulo and think he's both an excellent builder and person, my intention was to show him things that could be improved, for the best of his future builds, and he nicely appreciated my comment.
I don't want to be taken as hostile, lets please keep our conversation civilized.
@ChrisPy @ChiChiWerx
+2SimplePlanes
Digital Combat Simulator
@ChiChiWerx I tested with the clean airplane and around 70% internal fuel
You have improved a lot, the exterior looks excellent, the cockpit is stunning despite its simplicity, and the flight model is good. I see you did at least a bit of research (flaps, cockpit instruments, etc.), which is awesome.
+2.
However, it would be much better if half the instruments didn't have visual glitches, worked correctly, and the plane could pull more than 4Gs at 300 knots (pitch authority way too low, I assume you did this to keep loading at high speed at realistic numbers, but you could have reduced pitch authority as speed increases instead).
.
The real thing can pull up to 26° AoA, this barely gets to 11 at 100 knots or 4 at 300ish kts, (because of the pitch authority, once again), which also makes the plane bleed no energy in turns, something that planes do a lot at low and medium speeds.
.
Stall speed feels a bit too low, but that's just nitpicking lol.
Thrust, speed and rollrate are good, which is nice to see.
.
What most annoys me is the flight path vector, it just doesn't work like that, all you had to do is use the variables AngleOfAttack and AngleOfSlip, not pitch angle and whatever else you used.
.
tldr: plenty of small flaws, excellent other than that, big improvement over your previous builds, looking forward to whatever you've got planned next, I recommend you ask someone to test it before uploading (I volunteer).
cheers
dark thumbnail, good build
start with the fuselage, continue with the tail and cockpit, then move on to the wings, and finally, the landing gear
+2perma banned for multiple infractions
@MrACEpilot the main problem here is drag, not engine thrust
@Kangy identical huh? I was able to get to +800 km/h in RB, not get stuck at 515 because of all the drag this has, I feel like you didn't even fly it
+1looks good... flight model is.... ugh
+2I'm justn gonna say the most important and huge flaw: top speed, can't go faster that 515 km/h at sea level, which is little more than half the real thing's top speed, is it really that hard for you to build with dragless parts and add some drag at the end?
@ImAGoodFriend you should be able to edit the keybind in controls
+1say "this is a test"
+1something somethings version has to be iOS 13 or higher or something something. I don't remember correctly but it was something like that
without quotes you can't send more than one word
+1Quite sad that people only care about giving the upvote and not about the build itself
+2@asteroidbook345 looks like a 19 to be honest
@asteroidbook345 thought so, could you link me to the source of that info on the PF, sounds interesting
@Defalt1 why would I block you for that lol, I'm gonna stop now
+2@asteroidbook345 I can't find any reliable sources that state that, are you sure? All the info I found was that afterburners weren't used on migs until the MiG-17F. I couldn't find any mention of the so called PF variant either (It probably didn't exist).
@Defalt1 nowhere in that forum there is anything about upvote = tag. And I never upvote when it means I'm going to be tagged anyways...
+1I didn't request to be tagged...
+1TargetSelected & TargetDistance <= 5000 & Activate2
I've seen a MiG-15 with afterburner, my day is ruined and my disappointment is immeasureable
+1TargetSelected ? (something) : 0orclamp01(TargetSelected)*(something)just for activation, not input
@asteroidbook345 @LoafOfBread the extension and retraction cycle, specially the retraction one
too fast
this wouldn't be able to fly irl
+1my lastest thing
the reflections that method causes make me sick when flying, so I much rather stay with only glass on the exterior
+1pow(something,exponent)
pow(IAS,2) = IAS²
@Tejdz of course lol
@Tejdz np man