Welcome to simple but try and be a bit more creative with future submissions as Tarps Mustang has had all possible engine configurations submitted at least 10times for each.
@RAF1 I've added eight feet to the fuselage and pepd the performance up a little on a new version just uploaded, not entering it into your challenge as your only allowing one entry but do go take a look.
May I refer you to this demonstration I made a while back, shows how to put parts inside each other. The other bit requires you to alter the file for the part you are modifying save it as a sub assembly and then replace with the original file.
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/6hO9TE/part-merge-demo
I spent 10 mins fixing the minor issues with this plane and have to say it's excellent once you fit some appropriate rcns and fix the wings, neutral controls and enough wing to make slow flight easy I was dipping the wheels in the sea and flying off again a few moments later with no ill effects.
@Superdude sub assemblies are under the rotation options, modifying a nose cone requires you to alter the parameters of the part in a 3rd party xml file editor.
@Superdude blades are modified nose cones, jets are vtol nozzles on this one two modified to a maximum turn of 30 degrees, spinner is a rotator set to free turn. Simple option if you want to use them is drag them from a model you've seen them on save as a sub assembly and use in a new build.
Quoting your rules for when you tell me off for adding parts: This challenge makes you take the plane i give you and make a new one out of it. You cannot change any settings in the parts and have to use all of them. Make your plane a successor and enjoy
It's easy enough to make fly. Pick the vtol engine, toggle that to group 1 and take off without that active, fold the gear activate the vtol and she flies fine all be it with a wobbling vertical stabilizer.
@avioesBrasil I have no idea who you are and why I should care about how big your manhood is. If you like the planes enjoy flying them, if this isn't you bag I'm sure there's plenty on the internet to float your boat.
I recovered it, shut the throttle steer into the flip and open the throttle once the flip is slowing. That said it's prone to structural failure near the cockpit in this sort of extreme manoeuvre so best avoided. Reduce the size of the elevators would be my first suggestion or lengthen the fuselage would be the second option.
Even planes made by some golds get very few downloads these days, the rubbish that knocks stuff that takes hours to build makes me cross from time to time, for example the Hawker Tempest that I put up more than a week ago 9 downloads at the moment, doesn't compute in my mind.
@LjSpike as for nose heavy in vertical landings with down thrust? I can't contemplate a reason for having thrusters pointing at the ground when you should in effect trying to reduce the fall rate of the plane at that point. Looking at reasons though it's probably due to the lift that the airflow round the airbrakes at the rear of the plane.
@LjSpike can't see the need for downwards thrust, gravity does that for you fairly well and you've disposed of rearward thrust here, also you've put some of the brakes to operate with throttle which is counter productive. If you really want downwards thrusters some 180 degree nozzles would be the logical solution although that's going to make small adjustments more difficult.
Tail detachment issues need fixing, use the modified wing for tail surfaces as well for those. Also worth looking to put some rcns at the wing tips so you can truly control in the vtol (as it is you have no roll control) but otherwise its pretty much the finished article.
Nice effort, I think most folks are busy playing with the beta version at the moment. Like most USAAF Thus losses mine was caused by the side of a valley jumping out and catching me, not really the best plane for the canyon run.
@Jman442020 V3 the successor to this aircraft is an improvement again, this was in a period when wing rip offs in simple planes used to be common especially given the near M3.0 performance of this plane.
I like the noise.
@AnonnymousUser99 you haven't flown that many planes off here then.
Very simple and easy to fly (and land).
The flight isn't that tricky once you work out the pitch controls are inverted, the vtol controls help you keep the nose up as well.
Welcome to simple but try and be a bit more creative with future submissions as Tarps Mustang has had all possible engine configurations submitted at least 10times for each.
I like it but your nozzles are all mucked up, oh and its way too fast for the period it's from.
@RAF1 I've added eight feet to the fuselage and pepd the performance up a little on a new version just uploaded, not entering it into your challenge as your only allowing one entry but do go take a look.
Not sure about IoS but I'm sure someone out there will be modding apple files.
What do you need help with?
@RAF1 fair enough it's a bit short in the fuselage.
@RAF1 ? What's the scoring system, I obviously don't understand it thought you where after replicas of Soviet era equipment.
May I refer you to this demonstration I made a while back, shows how to put parts inside each other. The other bit requires you to alter the file for the part you are modifying save it as a sub assembly and then replace with the original file. https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/6hO9TE/part-merge-demo
A decent little plane easy to fly, pretty quick and not all that limited on range.
Looks great, flies horrifically.
I'm pretty sure the 262 had wing mounted engines.
@A5mod3us Many thanks for the challenge and the ratings.
@Sirstupid these ultra lights seem to attach a lot of interest, will see when I get back what the score is.
@JocobHardy64 that was very quick.
Nice effort a description of controls would have been handy.
I spent 10 mins fixing the minor issues with this plane and have to say it's excellent once you fit some appropriate rcns and fix the wings, neutral controls and enough wing to make slow flight easy I was dipping the wheels in the sea and flying off again a few moments later with no ill effects.
@Superdude sub assemblies are under the rotation options, modifying a nose cone requires you to alter the parameters of the part in a 3rd party xml file editor.
@deltafrost134 yes it says so at the top, you version didn't fly and you asked for it to be fixed.
I've made a playable version of this for you but would suggest the tutorials about the basics of building aeroplanes are the place you should go next.
Killer amounts of dihedral on both the wings and tail.
@Superdude blades are modified nose cones, jets are vtol nozzles on this one two modified to a maximum turn of 30 degrees, spinner is a rotator set to free turn. Simple option if you want to use them is drag them from a model you've seen them on save as a sub assembly and use in a new build.
Quoting your rules for when you tell me off for adding parts: This challenge makes you take the plane i give you and make a new one out of it. You cannot change any settings in the parts and have to use all of them. Make your plane a successor and enjoy
@SeriousFlipper4 yup two bits of wing
I've built gear similar to this in the past it's unfortunate that it becomes rather fragile when extended.
Loaded a new variant of this didn't fix the prop but perhaps it can be fixed with the beta updated parts.
It's easy enough to make fly. Pick the vtol engine, toggle that to group 1 and take off without that active, fold the gear activate the vtol and she flies fine all be it with a wobbling vertical stabilizer.
Slow and the missiles are awkward one not that functional but it's a great first effort.
I would say camouflage top grey underbelly.
@A5mod3us indeed but posting other people planes isn't seen as good form.
Make your own planes or at the very least seek permission and give credit to those you copy.
@Garuda1 congratulations on silver you've come a long way in a month.
@avioesBrasil I have no idea who you are and why I should care about how big your manhood is. If you like the planes enjoy flying them, if this isn't you bag I'm sure there's plenty on the internet to float your boat.
@LjSpike it reduces, fly level flat out with the gear down then retract the gear and see the difference.
I recovered it, shut the throttle steer into the flip and open the throttle once the flip is slowing. That said it's prone to structural failure near the cockpit in this sort of extreme manoeuvre so best avoided. Reduce the size of the elevators would be my first suggestion or lengthen the fuselage would be the second option.
Less than 400mph isn't fast. Check out all the drag you have to overcome and look at making the plane slippery.
Oh and easy to go supersonic in a small format without modded engines, not knocking the build though, just saying.
Even planes made by some golds get very few downloads these days, the rubbish that knocks stuff that takes hours to build makes me cross from time to time, for example the Hawker Tempest that I put up more than a week ago 9 downloads at the moment, doesn't compute in my mind.
@LjSpike as for nose heavy in vertical landings with down thrust? I can't contemplate a reason for having thrusters pointing at the ground when you should in effect trying to reduce the fall rate of the plane at that point. Looking at reasons though it's probably due to the lift that the airflow round the airbrakes at the rear of the plane.
@LjSpike can't see the need for downwards thrust, gravity does that for you fairly well and you've disposed of rearward thrust here, also you've put some of the brakes to operate with throttle which is counter productive. If you really want downwards thrusters some 180 degree nozzles would be the logical solution although that's going to make small adjustments more difficult.
Flies ok, welcome to simple planes.
@gonny it's a standard p51 with some extra blocks making it wider.
Tail detachment issues need fixing, use the modified wing for tail surfaces as well for those. Also worth looking to put some rcns at the wing tips so you can truly control in the vtol (as it is you have no roll control) but otherwise its pretty much the finished article.
Nice effort, I think most folks are busy playing with the beta version at the moment. Like most USAAF Thus losses mine was caused by the side of a valley jumping out and catching me, not really the best plane for the canyon run.
Works surprisingly well although it's rather nose heavy.
@Jman442020 V3 the successor to this aircraft is an improvement again, this was in a period when wing rip offs in simple planes used to be common especially given the near M3.0 performance of this plane.
@JacobHardy64 no Amazon app store.