Here are the lighting requirement and when those lights should be illuminated:
Position lights (AKA “Nav lights”): Red light on left wing, near wingtip, green light on left wing, near wingtip, while light at the end of tailcone (sometimes at tip of vertical tail, especially if a T tail). These shine steadily and are typically illuminated whenever there’s power on the jet, even when parked with the engines shutdown. Another variation you’ll see is two wingtip lights, one on top and another on the bottom, typically done if the light cannot be placed at the very end of the wingtip.
Red anti collision beacon, AKA “rotating beacon”. This one flashes, usually about once a second, either by mechanically turning a light in a housing or just flashing the light if an LED (787). Typically two lights, one on the top of the fuselage and one on the bottom. Illuminated any time the engines are running. Again, you may see multiple lights of the physical position of the light is constrained in where it can go or if there’s something that blocks seeing the light in a certain direction (see “U-2 SPUR Pod”).
Strobe lights, white: These are the really bright flashing lights, they will typically flash in a pattern, such as two quick flashes, slight pause, two more quick flashes, etc. Illuminated anytime jet takes the runway for departure and is airborne, turned off when exiting the runway. Placement is typically one on top of the fuse, another on the bottom and one at each wingtip.
Landing, taxi and “turnoff” lights: All are white and designed to illuminate in front of the aircraft and some of each side to allow the pilots to steer without leaving the taxiway or hitting anything. Landing lights are typically bigger and brighter and canted somewhat downwards to illuminate the runway on short final. Turnoff lights illuminate usually when the jet is turning beyond a certain number of degrees to clear the side of the aircraft during the turn. Location depends, but typically on the nose gear strut (taxi), wing roots or they may extend out the bottom of the wing. Again, taxi takeoff and land with the taxi lights on, the landing lights are activated with a switch and usually when the landing gear is extended and the turnoff lights are typically connected with the taxi light switch and activated when the steering tiller is turned a certain amount in each direction.
Also, don’t get too Funky...most of these lights are simple on/off switches activated by the pilots...
Fun to fly and looks good. What @Blue0Bull says regarding the front fuse is correct, though it’s not a fatal mistake...I didn’t overlay it on a 3 view (“blueprint”), so I don’t know how far off it is, though simply looking at it, I can tell it’s a little off. Some nice details here, good cockpit work and I really like the custom built AIM-9/AIM-120s (are they yours?...I really wish SP would overhaul the stock missiles to look more like the RL thing). You could have put the bay doors on a “FireWeapon” command so that they flick open as the missile leaves and close immediately after, just as they do in RL. No gun...hmmm... The fact one has to activate AG1 to have the flight surfaces move is an odd choice and I’ve seen a couple of comments regarding that issue below. Flight performance is more video game and less RL...it flies quite high (above 60,000’), but in AB it does 4,500 mph+(!), almost 3x what the RL can do. Since you only have 1,700 drag points, you could have tweaked the power to give it much more realistic acceleration and speed. Turns like crazy pills...the pilot is crushed to death with the Gs. At 1,000 mph, it can turn 360 degrees in 4 seconds. Again, not necessary by any stretch of the imagination...you’re talented enough to adjust the performance to something realistic, so I encourage you to do so on your next build. Plus it loops right after taking off if you’re not careful...again, adjust the pitch rate and it won’t have that tendency. All the drag seems to be on one corner of the glareshield...off center. That’s why it has autoroll at high speeds (don’t believe me?, fly really fast and high, then pull straight back...it rolls). Next time, put the drag on a part that’s absolutely dead center. As for playing with it...well, it IS ridiculously fun, I admit...I flew around plinking jets off left and right. The missiles look great and you even got the angled Sidewinders correct when deployed. It also lands well enough, which is good. When Philip of Macedonia sat on a throne, he had a servant whisper in his ear “someday you’ll be dead”, over and over again, in order to keep himself grounded. Great success on this one, the cool screenshot and subject really sell it, I encourage you to work on the flight model a little more next time, if you ever need a test flight, let me know. Keep up the good work and fly safe!
@asteroidbook345...and? Tessemi’s observation is legitimate. There are many, many great looking builds which barely fly, don’t fly correctly, or don’t fly at all! I’m not sure why that is, if you just trust the SP flight model, put the CoG and CoM in approximately correct location, use realistic weights, wing areas and know how to drag reduce, it’s not hard to get something that flies realistically. I just can’t understand people who spend weeks assembling 1000+ parts then give up trying to make it fly. I spent about 2 months working on my last build with at least half of that—a full month—also working on the flight model, tweaking and perfecting it over time. But I guess that’s the difference, you either care enough to go beyond a great looking screenshot, or you don’t, and have a poor build.
Wow, that was easy.
I have to agree with @Hedero, keep posting them, the number/amount of users who benefit from these, and who comment positively, most likely far outnumbers the numbers of users who post negative/derogatory comments. Everyone here should understand you're the top ranked builder here and actually do possess the skills from which any builder can learn. I know I learn some new build technique about SP myself every time you post your vids.
@edensk I think you’re getting bogged down in the details. I do not disagree that this build’s AoA limits are not as high as the RL jet’s. However, high performance jets are programmed to AoA, as in to not allow the pilots to exceed those limits. But pilots of high performance aircraft such as the F-16 fly as much by feel in those phases of flight...buffet (something this build actually replicates, but which you don’t mention), nose track and G loading...even wind noise...are much more obvious indicators of aircraft maneuvering performance and are actually replicated pretty well here, far better than even my builds. Those subtle cues that are sensed automatically are why an experienced with 2,000 hrs in type knows more than a newbie wingman. You may have watched a bunch of videos and played DCS, but as a retired USAF pilots who has flown more than 4,000 hrs total, including more than 500 of those hours in what the Brits call “fast jets”, I think this flight model is pretty good given SP’s limitations. And just to be sure, as I didn’t fly F-16s myself, I looked it up: Read this AFM I found on the FAS website (these guys have a little of everything): F-16 Combat Aircraft Fundamentals and you’ll see how G loading and not an AoA number is a pilot’s main reference to maximizing turn performance in the Viper. We can further discuss it if you would like.
I don’t usually download or upvote anything but aircraft...especially not a dump truck! However, this is typically Bog quality, that is to say, better than 99.9% of the builds posted, so had to at least try it out. I love the realism, most wouldn’t have given it a realistic 400,000 lb. weight or tried to wrap their brain around the FT formulas required to make this high quality of a build. Nice work, two thumbs up!
Well, I hope you’re comparing the two using the same TAS/IAS; otherwise comparison just isn’t valid. I can’t see what speed the DCS F-15 is flying. Also your SP build is loaded with Boom 50s, which in RL, would significantly degrade the turning capability of any jet.
Well said and I said so on the original post when that plane went past 50 upvotes. I agree with you for the same reasons as you articulate: First, how does this make the creator, @Spicyninja feel? How would anyone else feel being constantly ridiculed on a post? Probably not welcome as his post has been constantly ridiculed since posting. This community has by and large been fairly supportive in the past, but this joking reaction has been a pretty poor representation of the majority of people on site. Second, this build is awfully simple to have more than 100 upvotes, which in itself degrades the community’s efforts as a whole.
@tsampoy nah, that’s overly harsh. The MiG-15? Not a copy, looks kinda like a Sabre, but if you look closely, the nose intake and swept wing is most of the similarity, but the German invention of the swept wing was used at the same time by both the Soviets and West. The MiG-19? Definitely less advanced than the Super Sabre, so, not a copy, the Hun has features the Soviets would have copied if they could, like the all moving stab. So, not a copy. The MiG-21? Copy of what? There isn’t anything similar in design or concept until, arguably the F-16A’s original concept, perhaps the F-8 Crusader...kinda same concept, vastly different designs. Same thing MiG-23/27. MiG-25? Preceded the Eagle and was vastly inferior but for top speed and altitude, where it was superior. MiG-29, sort of a cross between the F-16 and F-17/18, but dissimilar to both in design. So, no, don’t think so. There might be elements of MiG designs “borrowed” from the West without permission, but, they’re much more original than you give credit for. Oh, yeah, there are zero MiG bombers, Mikoyan Guervich builds only fighters.
Yeah...right (insert eye roll here). This is so clever, it’s stupid. Besides the fact I can punch all sorts of holes in this theory (commercial aircraft are restricted to 250 KIAS below 10,000’, that airplane is perhaps only 1 to 2 miles away from the camera man, etc.), keeping a secret like this makes absolutely no sense. Sure, distrust government, institutions, etc., but why in the world would Airbus hide some advanced propulsion tech? If they had something like this and wanted to keep it a secret, they certainly wouldn’t be selling it to Delta Airlines and it’s thousands of employees and millions of passengers. And if something so revolutionary as this was developed, they’d be selling it to everyone and crush Boeing out of the aerospace market. I’m amazed at conspiracy theorists all the time, from flat earthers to moon landing hoaxers to 9/11 deniers, all a products of watching too much of the X-Files (which I love to watch myself 😃👍)!
Who ever said we didn’t fly F-104s in the ‘Nam? Not a huge role, by any means, but as you show in the pics, they were deployed there. The reason why many don’t know of it is because they didn’t participate in large numbers.
Ok, flight tested this thing. Really, given the interesting flight model, it deserves more than a cursory look. Fuel, weights, wing loading are all in the ballpark, very nice and is almost always the precursor to a realistic flight model. Acceleration on takeoff is realistic, one thing I immediately noticed is there isn’t enough trim authority, without flaps extended, to keep the nose from dropping at low speeds (anything slower than 400 knots), where trim is really needed to control the jet. IRL, this jet, as almost all aircraft, had plenty of trim authority up to the stall. When going vertical, it’s nice to see that the jet actually slows, unlike most builds. IRL, this jet had about a .6:1 thrust to weight ratio, so the slowdown could be a lot faster, but at least it doesn’t accelerate going straight up. As for the way the trim is setup, one benefit was that I actually could fly straight and level hands off, as I could make minute trim adjustments...the stability is very good with this one, nice. The turn performance is also mostly realistic, with a good slowdown when pulling a lot of G. I didn’t take the build apart to get a sense of how you modeled this, but I suspect you may have a G limiter built in somewhere, given Mikoyanster’s limitation of 7.5 Gs. This isn’t totally realistic, but here, it works. The slats seem connected to airspeed only...? IRL, slat programs are more complex on fighters, but I prefer to connect slats to AoA as even the Me-109 was set up for slat deployment when the boundary layer separated from the wing at high AoA. Weapons are nice, though the Sidewinders fly on for the rails way faster than IRL (that’s saying a lot as IRL, Sidewinders accelerate very quickly). Speed performance is in the ballpark...I have the same struggles modeling fast speeds at SL and realistic speeds at altitude. I finally resorted to an engine thrust reduction program for my builds, but the programming could be better. But it’s the only way I know of achieving the desired effect. The biggest quirk with this build is the adverse roll at stall...that can be the case IRL, but with the spoilers, I would think the rolloff at stall to be in the direction of the deployed spoiler. Also, the stall occurs at really fast speeds, way faster than I would expect IRL. I would have died flying this jet. I experienced the rolloff at IAS as high as 265 knots in a turn (about 30 degrees of bank) and as high as 200 KIAS on straight and level final, fully
@PETG he may have blocked you, but I haven’t as I don’t ever block anyone, even those with whom I may disagree. What @BogdanX is trying to express is that there are far too many instances of quality builds being overlooked for dumb memes, joke builds, low quality flight models, builds with numerically high part counts or a tendency to upvote builds with great screenshots, never taking the time to even download and test out said build. He’s just being blunt and direct and I happen to agree with much of what he says. There exists a core of many builders and players who appreciate quality builds, but there are many out there who don’t appreciate anything besides jokes and don’t think about how they upvote. There are many in between players as well. However, as of late, instances of upvoting the German Corsairs x2, four part builds and a persistent upvoting is poorly flying builds which have a million parts or great looking screenshots have been far too common to take the tastes and opinions of the community at large that seriously. But, don’t be so offended by his opinion. He’s allowed to have his own opinion and you’re allowed to disagree. And all players, even if their build is great, but doesn’t get the attention it deserves should be reassured that quality doesn’t necessarily equal upvotes. So, be well, keep building for your enjoyment and perhaps a few other's and don’t worry about it.
Perfect foil to my Thud...I simulated the air war over ‘Nam again. AEW warned VPAF MiG-21s were setting up a bounce of my Thud formation, we dumped tanks and bombs and went to ‘burners with fangs out to duck behind some terrain and convert to a more advantageous position. Was it Colonel Toon??? The Fishbed crested the rise, already in position to let loose his two AA-2s! At 600 knots, I pulled back hard to 7 Gs to go vertical as the green MiG flashed past. Still in full blower, but nose up 60 degrees, the speed bleeding off...but the MiG pulled around tight to convert to a stern aspect...I knew turning with him was suicide. He let loose an Atoll...flares, flares, flares! The missile bit off and went wide, smoke trailing. I tried to foil another shot by burying my nose, then pulling back hard once my speed built up, vision narrowing as the Gs built up. My elliptical path brought my nose through the vertical, then back down. Nose buried, I accelerated away...another shot! Frantically, I mashed out my remaining flares...whew! Using my superior low level speed, but running out of gas, I pulled around hard with him at 5 nm astern and put him in my sight...Sidewinder growling, I let the missile fly with a whoosh, following the trail until it inevitably exploded into the target...Colonel Toon was no more...
@randomusername it ain't called that in the flying world. Can't rename something that already exists.
The rules state: “Don’t beg for upvotes.” The question is whether or not this constitutes begging for upvotes. If you write a description for the build, then tag that at the end, then, technically it probably wouldn’t be seen as begging. But I’m not a Mod. I do know a few, and they might disagree. It’s up to them, and as much in life, it’s open to interpretation. I can tell you that if you make a separate forum post with that message, then, yes it would definitely be seen as begging. In spite of all that, the SP community, especially the platinum ranked denizens of the SP universe who might Spotlight your creation to their 6,385 followers, generally think it in very poor form to ask for upvotes in any way. The build should sell itself. I’ve been posting builds for over 2 years and it’s a learning process. Some builds I thought would be wildly successful weren’t, while others that I thought would be mildly successful were very well received. Bottom line, though, is if there’s any question in your mind that it might be seen as begging, it would be prudent not to do so. Hope this helps to answer your questions.
Well, too bad this isn’t the 19th Century, these two probably won’t find a reason to fight each other. Perhaps, launch the Victory and Hermione against each other to slug it out with breech loading cannon fire. I do have to say, though, I’m impressed by their capabilities, which are quite significant.
Well, comparing a temporary or permanent user ban is, IMHO, a fallacy known as “false equivalency”. This is a website, while incarceration or the death penalty IRL is...real life with real consequences. To equate an SP ban to RL isn’t valid. Besides, just follow the website rules. There isn’t anything amoral to the posted rules, so there’s no compelling reason for breaking any of the forum rules. I myself have been around here for nearly 5 years without a single incident. I’ve said some controversial things, but they’ve all been controversial builder opinions, such as “Unlimited Fuel is the Dumbest Thing in SP”...I don’t generally stray into politics, religion, etc., but have no qualms about answering questions put forth because I present my case in a calm, respectful manner and in a way that adheres to the rules. Your second position, that Mods should consider the point total (relative fame) of a particular user prior to issuing a ban is essentially an argument that equal justice should not be applied equally. This, from a moral standpoint is wrong. No man or user ought to be above the law. If the rules are not applied equally, then the rules are compromised. Consider this: If two users, one with 27K points (me) and a second with 6,483 points (you) say exactly the same thing, but you’re banned, while I am not...would that be fair? Who decides what level deserves what reduction in sentence? The Mods? You yourself are complaining that you don’t trust the Mods to administer fairly, so why would you assume the Mods would make these more complex and morally ambiguous decisions in accordance with how you see things?
Looks great and the flight model is very, very good. Yeah, the flap falling off is annoying, but easily fixed, see link below. If you try and force it off the runway too early (before about 210 KIAS), it will stall and if you fly too slow on landing (anything below 230 KIAS), it will mush in, just like the RL jet would. It accelerates sufficiently quickly, the top speeds are in the ballpark, both high and low altitude, the turn performance is about right. Far too many SP players think the 104 didn’t turn. It did, but at very high speeds which made for a huge turn circle. It didn’t pull much G slow, which is why 104 pilots flew fast, fast, fast, all the time. The MiG-21 was a better all around dog fighter because it did have turn capability at lower speeds than the 104, though it too bled speed quickly in hard turns due to the delta wing. I also like that this build will decelerate if you raise the nose high. That’s a detail other builders miss when they crank the power on the engine. Nice work. Wish I could Spotlight because this really is one of the superior F-104s on the site.
A jet’s G limit isn’t the ultimate Gs that a jet—especially a fighter type aircraft—can pull. It’s actually a structural limit that beyond which, a jet may suffer damage, whether that’s deformation or structural failure. A jet almost always has the capability, especially in high subsonic flight regimes, to exceed the G limit and it’s often done accidentally. I do commend your intent to make this a realistic challenge, but be aware that jets do frequently exceed their advertised G limitations. Now as for the “rolling G” limit, what that means is usually a jet’s published vertical G limitation is lower while rolling...ie, the T-38’s published max G limit for symmetrical flight was 7.2 Gs (<1000 lbs of fuel or less remaining) while if the jet was in any rate of roll, ie, in “unsymmetrical flight” that G limit was only 5 Gs. That’s why pilots of fighters generally learn to first unload to 1 G, roll to set the proper lift vector, then pull back. Rolling G is therefore not some sort of lateral G limitation that limits the jet’s roll rate. In fact, a jet’s max roll rate is best described in degrees per second and does generally vary with flight regime. Any jet’s max roll rate is usually pretty easy to find with a quick Google search, in order to meet your intent, I would advise that any entrant’s roll rate is no more than the RL maximum roll rate, plus or minus a few degrees.
Congratulations to one of our most talented, respected and reasonable members. Well deserved!
Nice move, Jundroo!
This is actually very good for a newer builder, looks nice and flies not too badly. So, lots of good, but lots of things I would have done differently. I may tag you on an unlisted to discuss. Just to let it be known that I don’t blindly upvote and Spotlight without flying builds, it should be noted that my biggest complaint for this forum is the wing loading. The Voodoo had an insanely high wing loading of 124 lbs/sq ft on a thin (6-7%) symmetric airfoil...this causes a jet to fly fast, turn more slowly and land like a rocket (ask me how I know). Attempting to land a build with 14 lbs/sq ft, nearly 10 times less wing loading at realistic landing speeds 150-160 knots causes it to float like a Schweitzer 233 glider. The irony here is that you clearly care and worked hard on the flight model. As for the rest—well researched, stunning paint scheme, nice AIM-4s, nice shaping, particularly with the tough bits such as the transition between the engines, rear fuse and wings, good looking landing gear and good speed. And the intake work is great. The ejection seat, interesting, but frankly not really needed as the paint scheme alone makes this build beautiful enough on its own.
Form follows function.
I’m sure they don’t perfectly correlate to any particular weapon, but have characteristics of several common ones. In my opinion, the wing gun is modeled after the .50 cal M2 Browning machine gun, which was widely used as the standard US aircraft gun until the advent of USAF aircraft cannon armament in the 1950s. But, it could also be modeled after the .30 cal M1919 Browning, which was also widely used as an aircraft gun through WWII. The “Minigun” is probably modeled after either the M134 Minigun or the M61 Vulcan...however, the M134 is a miniaturized M61 designed for standard NATO 7.62mm ammo and used mostly on helis, while the M61 is a 20 mm monster of a rotary cannon and the standard US aerial cannon. The in game Minigun is only slightly larger than the M134, but much heavier, while it’s much smaller and lighter than the M61. But I use the game’s Minigun for all my M61 applications, where I’ll scale it up to be about the right size. For all the in game weapons, they all seem to fire gun type rounds as they don’t inflict the type of damage associated with explosive cannon shells, so another thing I do is XML up the damage from the gun if they’re modeled after cannons.
@FairFireFight many jets which never operated from carriers have hooks in real life...F-16, F-15E, F-105, F-100, etc., just to name a few. The hooks are there to arrest the barrier cable at the end of a runway should a problem develop (hydraulics, landing gear, brakes, etc.). The cable system is, in the USAF, known as the BAK-12. Here’s an example of it in action, in this case arresting a landing F-16. So while you are correct in asserting, contrary to what @ProcessedPlAnEs says, that wing area doesn’t mean it cannot land on a carrier (look at the A-4), the T-2 never landed on a carrier, nor was it ever meant to do so. The hook is merely there in the event of an emergency landing on a conventional land-based runway.
@randomusername no such thing. Not in RL, anyway. Present me a plane that doesn't need trim and I'll tell you it's not realistic.
They’re actually pretty good airplanes, depending on your definition. They’re rugged, tend to turn well at low to medium altitudes, are usually very fast for their time. They tend to be heavily armed and are usually less expensive than their Western counterparts. They do not tend to be as advanced as their Western counterparts (exceptions to this include the MiG-15). Their design philosophy is different: Their engines are designed to last a shorter period time and changed out wholely instead of being carefully maintained over time. The idea is that it would be easier to simply swap the entire engine in combat. Weapons are hit and miss on whether they are more advanced. The AA-2 was a copy of the early Sidewinder (recovered from a Chinese jet shot by a Taiwanese F-86 equipped with AIM-9B), the AA-10C and AA-11 are very advanced, in some ways superior to the AIM-120 and AIM-9. However, the West and US particularly, have embraced the smart bomb revolution so that’s not even a competition there.
Looks good and it flies easily enough. Nice effort. My complaint is that it’s stable...a little too stable, if you ask me. The RL jet wasn’t stable or forgiving, in fact less so than its Western counterpart, which is still a handful. Anyway, besides being extremely easy, I can barely force it to fly an aileron roll, which I’m sure wasn’t a problem for the RL Forger. I think I can disable the gyro and give an assessment because I think it would reflect its RL model more accurately.
Oh, and for heaven’s sake, why are you NOT using intake pieces to model the rudder? The rounded trailing edge of the tail looks like crap!
Two words: FLIGHT MODEL. In order to capture the Phantom’s flight characteristics you need to ensure very high speeds at low level (nearly Mach 1.2 at sea level), but no faster than Mach 2.23 at altitude (probably will take an engine program to boost power at high IAS, “ram air effect” and reduce power at low air density/altitude). It needs to be able of pulling at least 7.33+ G instantaneously...but more because IRL pilots use a G meter and fly to the limits of the aircraft but almost always have a performance reserve which allows a pilot pull harder and overstress the airframe. The build should bleed a good amount of airspeed/altitude/energy in hard turns, as it would IRL. It should also slow down when the throttles are pulled back, hidden SBs may be required, depending on how many drag points you have. Wing area should be approximately the same size as RL to approximate wing loading and be sure to use the SYMMETRIC AIRFOIL...I have no idea why builders put Cessna wings on high performance jets which have symmetric airfoils IRL. One thing SP does model is the performance characteristics of cambered vs. semi-symmetric vs. symmetric airfoils, so why not use them? And lastly, the Phantom didn’t fly like an airliner...so don’t make it fly like one. It may not have the turn circle of a MiG-21, but it was a fighter and was fairly good when light, so model appropriately...here’s an inspiration if you need one!
Very well done and super fun to fly. Feels very close to a RL aircraft, seriously. The takeoff and landing characteristics are exceptional...tricky if you over control it, but docile if you do it right. The roll rate and turn rate are great, flight model is very well done here. Nice work!
Depends. As a RL pilot with more than 4,000 hours of actual flight time, I like the builder to relay all functionalities, including all AGs. Power settings and takeoff/landing/maneuvering speeds are good to know, as well as any built-in limitations and flying peculiarities. The player doesn’t have to read them if they don’t want to, so what’s the heartburn? I have fairly long descriptions as I attempt to imbue my builds with many of the RL flight characteristics and I like to make sure the player knows what they need to know to not get frustrated. As a result, complex builds tend to have long descriptions. Simple builds, on the other hand, might not have a long description. But there is a time and place for both long and short descriptions, as appropriate.
Pretty good. Build quality is great, it’s very well detailed, the mold lines are right on and it just looks “right”. I would have included the swastica for historical accuracy, but I understand your reticence to do so. Flight model highlights are general performance and turn rate. It is tough to take off, not quite in the same way as RL powerful prop airplanes, but challenging nonetheless. Just keep the tailwheel on the ground and there’s no directional control problems. Would be nice if there was enough authority to lift the tailwheel prior to taking off, but it’s not impossible to control this build. Something to improve is the roll rate. I timed it at 45 deg/sec. The roll rate on my 737 is better than this build and though the Ta-152’s roll rate was a little slower than the shorter winged FW-190 (which had a fantastically good roll rate), it was nonetheless very good, at least comparable to the P-51’s.
Hits: Build quality and details. Camo job. You really captured the often missed details here, AB shape, spoilers, custom landing gear and camo job is especially noteworthy. It seems a lot of research and care went into this build. Next time, you could use the triangle method of wing building, which would allow a thicker root and thinner tip.
Misses: High acceleration, flaps on trim/no dedicated trim, bobbing when pulling back. Solutions to these are 1. Using drag reduction techniques, 2. Learn to incorporate trim into your builds, like almost every RL jet ever built. 3. “DamperMultiplier=10000” on your stab rotators. Nice overall, especially for your experience. Keep up the research and attention to detail, as well as learning SP building tricks and techniques and you’ll be platinum in no time.
Bravo! Very nice build...first of all, it’s beautiful. The flight model is great, slow acceleration, appropriate roll rate, it loses energy in the turn. It actually flies as I understand those earlier jets flew, marginal excess power, bolters were dangerous due to slow engine acceleration, landings were doable, but dangerous if you screwed them up. Minor, minor complaints...the engine spool up is perhaps a bit slow (would have to read up on the jet to be sure) and landing gear extension should result in increased drag; but overall, great job!
Looks good, good cockpit view and it flies relatively well. Roll rate, takeoff and landing characteristics and lightness/responsiveness of controls (as well as that can be simulated in SP) are all very well done. For next time, however: Turn rate is way too high. I have not evaluated G capability using the dev console, but this build is probably pulling 18-30 Gs in the turn. Energy loss in the turn itself is appropriate, but G capability is way too high; no manned aircraft traveling at 200 knots can turn inside the width of the Wright Island Airport, which is probably 150’ wide, even given the maneuvering reserve built into most aircraft Otherwise, very good build and very fun to fly.
Way too fast, the Sikorsky this is based on only does around 300 mph. The reason why is that at high speeds, the retreating rotor blade travels much slower than the advancing rotor blade, producing a lot of asymmetric lift between the two sides of the rotor disc, which can only be compensated for to a certain degree. Exacerbating the problem is that at the speeds you’re talking about (567 mph), most of that advancing blade would be supersonic, causing a shockwave and even more loss of lift, plus a shift in the center of lift for that side of the rotor disc. All this would add up to an uncontrollable roll, breakup of the rotor disc and loss of the aircraft. IMHO, I would say anything over 350 mph is too fast. But I’m sure SP physics doesn’t model that and all of this only matters if you care about realism.
Yes, airspeed gauges do become less sensitive the higher you go. This is due to lower air density at altitude—fewer molecules go down the pitot tube to impact the diaphragm which moves the needle on the airspeed indicator. Depending on your altitude, there can be a huge difference between your indicated airspeed (IAS) and your true airspeed (TAS). Clipping along at 38,000 ft a 737 may be moving at 490 knots through the air, but only indicates 280 knots on the airspeed gauge. Winds at altitude, which can be quite strong, also impact your groundspeed. The wing part of your build acts as the diaphragm of an airspeed indicator (only because an SP wing is programmed to do so, not because there’s actually wind in SP) does—in fact, this build IS an accurate airspeed indicator for SP. The other thing to note is that in SP, that default “airspeed indicator” is not...its actually a groundspeed indicator, that’s why you see the difference. Clever build.
@BlackhattAircraft yes, and that’s my point. This should be posted on Discord, doesn’t have to be posted here. Have you posted this on Discord?
Geez, guys don’t lose your freaking minds. As someone who has a 737 type rating and probably the only person in this site qualified to fly the MAX, that’s not what the article says. I completed the Boeing MAX differences course in January and we have procedures to deal with the system failure in the Lion Air. Whether those pilots knew what the procedures were is unknown, but whenever there is a stab trim runaway in a Boeing, pretty much any Boeing, the procedure is the same. And a stab trim runaway is how the Lion Air accident presented and might have been solved. Consider this as well, there are no pilots refusing to fly the MAX. If there were, you might have reason for concern. Additionally, we have no idea what caused the Ethiopian crash, so your guess is as good as mine and might be one of a thousand things. Last, the 737–all types—is the most numerous airliner in the world. If there’s an aviation accident, chances are good it involved a 737.
Nice, but why did you give it 50,000 hp? It flies over 300 mph, the real thing flew just faster than 120 mph...
@F104Deathtrap yes I too am frustrated with the forums...they’re meant to allow discussion on builds or airplanes and airplane related topics, but instead have devolved into a collection of crap, feelings and “I’m leaving or I’m back” posts. Sad.
Well, I have to commend the build itself. Closest build on site to the RL jet; I myself have never tried to build one of these because of the shape, which is difficult to replicate in SP. you’ve done a good job there, surely. I wish it did have the drop tanks, though, as I think that would add to the F-80’s beautiful aesthetic. Flight performance...well, it is simple to takeoff, fly and land, no real vices. The acceleration, like the RL jet, is slow, which was a common issue on early jets, so nice there. Top speed down low lacks a little, oh well, but it feels fairly light and tossable, which is good. And, oh boy, love the guns...can shred any target you hit! And you didn’t make the mistake of putting cannons...which never hit airborne targets...on this build. The 6x.50 Cals probably weren’t that effective, but I like it!
Interesting? Check. Accurate? Possibly, not really familiar with this jet. Flight model? I think so...God-awful ugly? Absolutely!
@FairFireFlight actually, when Chuck Yeager was the defense attaché to Pakistan, he worked with the PAF in 1971 to put AIM-9s on the MiG-19, not sure if these were the S type MiGs or not. It’s in his book, “Yeager”, not sure if Ricardo here is depicting the AIM-9 in his build, but the PAF MiG-19s did carry them, at least for a short while.
Very nice, good flight dynamics, very pleasing to fly. The LG work, the bane of any Bearcat build, is particularly impressive. The RL plane accelerated very quickly, was very light on the touch and responsive, this one is the same. The fact that the tail lifts into a 2 point attitude during acceleration, as well as the fact it doesn’t nose over at the slightest brake application on landing is quite pleasing. It rolls around 90 degrees per second at 250 mph IAS, seems a little slow to me, I looked for the RL roll rate, no luck fining it though. As comparison, the FW-190 had a 180 degree roll rate at 250 mph IAS and the F8F’s roll rate has always been described as excellent. The turn rate seems good, haven’t put it on my laptop to see what the max G is, should pull over 7.5Gs fairly easily, though IRL, the plane initially had those break away wingtips which broke away over 7.5Gs (later changed). Overall, excellent work, which I could Spotlight, but I can’t!