Afterburner part that can be added to any of the jet engines with a user-selectable slider that increases the amount of thrust augmentation, but, at the same time, increases fuel consumption.
Yes, because you had to unlearn a lot of things you had ingrained from flying other airplanes, like easing forward on the yoke upon touchdown. If you tried that in the U-2, the jet would try and leave the runway.
The Academy was tough, but hard work paid off. Pilot training was probably the hardest single year of my life. I was lucky to graduate. Relearning how to fly in the U-2 during my interview. But life is a series of challenges that you either overcome or fail while trying.
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!
Flies fairly well. Max roll rate is a tad bit slower than IRL, but not far off. Takeoff distance and acceleration are in the ballpark, as is pitch rate. It doesn’t like to slow down and I’d have put more effect on the speed brakes, but it’s controllable. The build’s empty weight is close to the RL spec, but, overall, this thing is pretty lightly loaded, as if for a training sortie “around the flagpole”, instead of maxed out for a combat drop. TRs can deploy airborne, as with the RL jet. I was able to perform a tactical arrival and stop it in 4,000’, first try. With practice, I’m sure I could do it in 3,000’, nice.
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...
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.
@AndrewGarrison please tell me for the ASI can select knots and that it will display IAS, so that it will indicate properly like every RL airplane I’ve flown in the past 35 years! Also hoping for a Mach meter, the formula is not that difficult, if you assume standard day conditions for temperature. But this is great, can’t wait to see the update!
Rudder-induced roll. IRL, when stepping on the rudder, the effect is that the advancing wing produces more lift and resultant roll (generally). However, SP only the cockpit “sees” the airflow, there’s no differentiating on how the airflow differs between the two wings and pressing on the rudder doesn’t produce any difference in airflow between the two sides.
Flies nicely, though a bomb bay and bombs would be a nice addition later. By all accounts the Victor was a maneuverable and fast jet bomber, this reflects that nicely, though I would judge the roll rate a tad faster than what was likely with the RL jet. Using the smaller J90s, rather than the BFE150s would have gotten you build very close to the RL jet, though I think you wisely reduced the thrust on the bigger engines (on my phone right now, so difficult to tell for sure what you did). Also, this is fairly lighter than a RL Victor, being 15,000 lbs lighter empty and half as heavy fully loaded (100,000 vs. 200,000 lbs.). I’d rectify both weights by adding about 15,000 lbs of dead weight to your build, as well as the RL bomb load and a LOT more fuel. But don’t change the CG point as the pitch authority is about right as you have it now. Bombers on what was probably a one way nuc mission took off at max weight for max range strikes. Last, it has way too much pitch up with flap extension…I’d half the effect. If it were me, I’d make your next version of your build that way as well. Nice build.
@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.
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.
Way better than I expected. The acceleration on takeoff is a bit high and the energy loss is a bit low, but nothing is ridiculously unrealistic. Roll rate, turn rate and S.L. speeds are in the ballpark, the build itself looks pretty good (would have done the root trailing edges differently, but it looks like a Viper). My biggest comments are that I would also suggest you to use the symmetric airfoil instead of the Cessna wing, which would help your performance numbers greatly. Also, it has a little auto-roll, yuck!; but for all that, this is a very good build, especially given your 560 points.
@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 😃👍)!
In the 1930s, aircraft design was extremely rapid, with designers learning a lot about aerodynamics, power plants and human factors, which encompasses not only life support, but cockpit ergonomics. When the B-17 first flew, it did so without checklists, despite being a very complex aircraft…and the first prototype crashed when the test pilots forgot to remove the gust locks before takeoff. So, checklists were introduced. Besides that, the U.S. Army Air Corps began evaluating cockpit and control ergonomics and came to the conclusion that, in the stress of combat, crews needed to be able to reflexively interpret instruments and actuate controls without having to think about it. Part of the solution was to make landing gear handles shaped like a wheel at the end of a lever and a flap handle shaped like a little wing, etc. Previous to that, there might be switches or buttons which looked like any other switch but performed different functions…very confusing. It also helped when the crew couldn’t see the switch if they lost lighting at night, or due to smoke in the cockpit, etc. In fact, even today, some pilots are given what’s called a “blind cockpit check” to ensure they know the position of all the important controls by feel alone. That standardization exists to this day and that’s why most aircraft today have a landing gear handle that’s shaped like a lever with a wheel at the end and flap levers shaped like little wings.
An excellent, well executed build. The build itself captures the Kikka’s shape accurately, to include the outlines of the flying surfaces, which took some work judging by the number of parts used in that area. The flight model is good, about as good as can be expected while relying on the basic game physics and drag reduction. The wing area, fuel quantity, weights, wing loading and thrust are all accurate, so that results in a build that flies close to the RL jet. Acceleration (like all early jets, slow), takeoff roll, roll rate, pitch and turn rates and general performance at low altitude is close to RL, IMHO. The high altitude speed is too fast, I think because you used indicated airspeeds and not TAS to reflect the RL’s published “speeds”. However, the published RL performance figures are almost always for TAS, not IAS, and the difference in TAS and IAS is large at high altitude. At low altitude/S.L., where the difference in TAS and IAS is small, your build has a close to RL max level TAS, which is good. The fast airspeed at high altitude is also a result of the SP atmosphere model, which results in speeds being too slow at S.L. and too fast at high altitude. The only way I know of around this is to use a FT formula on the engines that decreases thrust as you climb, increases thrust with speed (ram air effect) or uses a speed brake that deploys when the jet’s max speed is reached. Everyone has their preferences, though I would suggest also use your speed brakes to simulate landing gear drag, as extended L.G. creates a lot of drag when extended. You use the concealed air brakes here with “Airbrake”, though the RL jet didn’t have any speed brakes and none are modeled on your build, which is really odd! What results is: Pull back on the throttle and the jet slows drastically…perhaps the biggest miss for your build. Last difference in what you did and what I would suggest is: More trim authority! Trim effectiveness (clean) is lost below 210 KIAS and though extending the flaps restores trim authority, that’s not how trim effectiveness works IRL. Trim is almost always effective to well below stall airspeed, whether clean or “dirty”. But, very nice build, my write up is long, but I wanted to give a complete evaluation because, regardless of any suggestions I make, this is an excellent build that feels realistic, flies nicely and is fun to fly. Keep up the good work!
I like a couple of things here: First, you used the symmetric wing, which really imparts the correct “feel” to the flight model. And the flight model as a whole is pretty good. Though I’m never a fan of unlimited fuel, I’ll let that one go unnoticed. Nice work!
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 muzzle loading cannon fire. I do have to say, though, I’m impressed by their capabilities, which are quite significant.
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
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.
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...
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.
None of what's below is correct; I build many aircraft which are slightly asymmetrical (i.e., cannon or refueling probe on one side but not the other). The primary reason why this happens is that when you place fuselage blocks on one wing (to add details or to "build up" the wing into a realistic profile), then nudge and mirror, the mirroring spawns a new fuselage piece onto the other wing, but not necessarily attached to the opposite attachment point. It usually picks the closest attachment point to the new position, while the original side stays attached to the original attachment point. This often creates a significant rolling motion. The only way to cure this is to detach everything off the wings and then to manually reattach everything, taking the time to ensure everything is attached symmetrically. It actually sounds a lot more difficult than it actually is. If you want to read more about this, here's a link. If you have further questions, let me know.
@FalconDynamics you’re correct, the F-5 does have the LEXs and the nose was called the “platypus” nose, according to a USN Aggressor friend of mine who flew with the West Coast unit. And, yes, those features made a big difference, especially at high AoA, but the whole family of jets were/are extremely similar and all fly similarly. And while you can pull the nose around beyond what the standard F-5A can do, it’s just not a high AoA jet like an F-16. Watch the flight demos online…no high AoA slow flight flybys…to attempt to do so that close to the ground would inevitably end in disaster with the jet sinking into the crash. As for the keyboard warriors, that’s legitimate, but unfortunate that anyone wouldn’t at least get some sort of game controller, I wish anyone beyond casual players would get more invested. As for the sloppy drag model, yup, you’re right, it sucks and it’s frustrating that you need to remove and re-add drag, there’s no transonic drag rise, not enough induced (lift created) drag and builds that match RL performance at low airspeed seem to continue to slowly accelerate forever at higher speeds. But I suggest you don’t overthink the flat bottom vs. semi vs. symmetric thing…the flat bottom generally flies like a Cessna wing, the symmetric wing generally flies like a symmetric wing and the semi somewhere in between, validated by my own in game “testing”. It is interesting that @jamesPLANESii found what he calls an interesting “buffet” from 14-20 degrees…which is what symmetric airfoils do IRL, while I think @CoolPeach kinda went overboard in his analysis and added only a little beyond JP’s original post. But, 99.7% of even an F-5’s life, as well as other aircraft, is spent at AoAs less than 14 degrees. While striving to perfect the .3%, don’t forget the big picture is all I’m saying. And credit where credit is due, you’re clearly devoted, detail oriented and it’s a very good build worth all the praise, but don’t let it go to your head. If you want to continue this elsewhere I do have a Discord channel, ChiChiWerx #7355. We can argue the finer points of all things SP, if you would like.
@Korzalerke not everything is on Wikipedia…however, I just happened to be reading the Wikipedia entry on the Grumman F4F Wildcat this evening and read that the following that’s related to our conversation: “ On 16 December 1940, the XF4F-3 prototype, BuNo 0383, c/n 356, modified from XF4F-2, was lost under circumstances that suggested that the pilot may have been confused by the poor layout of fuel valves and flap controls and inadvertently turned the fuel valve to "off" immediately after takeoff rather than selecting flaps "up". This was the first fatality in the type.” There were several accidents in those years attributable to poor ergonomics, happily we’ve come a long way since then.
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.
This is quite well constructed, the highlight being the landing gear, which really looks like a realistic landing gear. Far too often, builders will make the LG quite skinny or too short, often because it’s sometimes difficult to hide the main gear within the wing (that stupid protruding hub). However, yours looks like they generally do IRL, stout and beefy and strong enough to absorb a rough landing by a newbie fighter pilot. The overall effect is to make your build appear much more realistic, which I immediately noticed. Construction-wise the complaints I have include the fact that the stars and bars are on the opposite wing as they were/are IRL, something many builders get wrong and the strange combined trim and flap controls, which are almost always independent IRL. Hey, at least you used M.G.s and not that strictly-for-ground-targets cannon, so I can actually engage air to air targets. I can also do a loop in 1,500 ft at 400 mph, probably a 12 G loop...but at least it doesn’t turn tooooo slowly, as so many builds do.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A way of making holes, doors, openings in the hollow fuselage.
+31Supersonic effects
+28Semi-circles…now, it’s impossible to build good intakes for Mirage/F-104/etc. without paneling.
+19Afterburner part that can be added to any of the jet engines with a user-selectable slider that increases the amount of thrust augmentation, but, at the same time, increases fuel consumption.
+16- Yes, because you had to unlearn a lot of things you had ingrained from flying other airplanes, like easing forward on the yoke upon touchdown. If you tried that in the U-2, the jet would try and leave the runway.
- The Academy was tough, but hard work paid off. Pilot training was probably the hardest single year of my life. I was lucky to graduate. Relearning how to fly in the U-2 during my interview. But life is a series of challenges that you either overcome or fail while trying.
+12Fun 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!
+12Flies fairly well. Max roll rate is a tad bit slower than IRL, but not far off. Takeoff distance and acceleration are in the ballpark, as is pitch rate. It doesn’t like to slow down and I’d have put more effect on the speed brakes, but it’s controllable. The build’s empty weight is close to the RL spec, but, overall, this thing is pretty lightly loaded, as if for a training sortie “around the flagpole”, instead of maxed out for a combat drop. TRs can deploy airborne, as with the RL jet. I was able to perform a tactical arrival and stop it in 4,000’, first try. With practice, I’m sure I could do it in 3,000’, nice.
+11Rocket engine.
+11Here 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...
+11Well 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.
+11I assume this works on intakes as well?
+10Wow, that was easy.
+10@AndrewGarrison please tell me for the ASI can select knots and that it will display IAS, so that it will indicate properly like every RL airplane I’ve flown in the past 35 years! Also hoping for a Mach meter, the formula is not that difficult, if you assume standard day conditions for temperature. But this is great, can’t wait to see the update!
+9Flaps.
+9Rudder-induced roll. IRL, when stepping on the rudder, the effect is that the advancing wing produces more lift and resultant roll (generally). However, SP only the cockpit “sees” the airflow, there’s no differentiating on how the airflow differs between the two wings and pressing on the rudder doesn’t produce any difference in airflow between the two sides.
+9Flies nicely, though a bomb bay and bombs would be a nice addition later. By all accounts the Victor was a maneuverable and fast jet bomber, this reflects that nicely, though I would judge the roll rate a tad faster than what was likely with the RL jet. Using the smaller J90s, rather than the BFE150s would have gotten you build very close to the RL jet, though I think you wisely reduced the thrust on the bigger engines (on my phone right now, so difficult to tell for sure what you did). Also, this is fairly lighter than a RL Victor, being 15,000 lbs lighter empty and half as heavy fully loaded (100,000 vs. 200,000 lbs.). I’d rectify both weights by adding about 15,000 lbs of dead weight to your build, as well as the RL bomb load and a LOT more fuel. But don’t change the CG point as the pitch authority is about right as you have it now. Bombers on what was probably a one way nuc mission took off at max weight for max range strikes. Last, it has way too much pitch up with flap extension…I’d half the effect. If it were me, I’d make your next version of your build that way as well. Nice build.
+8@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.
+8Well, 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.
+8SMH…not “P-51-D”, it’s “P-51D”.
+7Way better than I expected. The acceleration on takeoff is a bit high and the energy loss is a bit low, but nothing is ridiculously unrealistic. Roll rate, turn rate and S.L. speeds are in the ballpark, the build itself looks pretty good (would have done the root trailing edges differently, but it looks like a Viper). My biggest comments are that I would also suggest you to use the symmetric airfoil instead of the Cessna wing, which would help your performance numbers greatly. Also, it has a little auto-roll, yuck!; but for all that, this is a very good build, especially given your 560 points.
+7Nice. I blew myself up on landing, just like they did in WWII!
+7@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.
+7Yeah...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 😃👍)!
+7In the 1930s, aircraft design was extremely rapid, with designers learning a lot about aerodynamics, power plants and human factors, which encompasses not only life support, but cockpit ergonomics. When the B-17 first flew, it did so without checklists, despite being a very complex aircraft…and the first prototype crashed when the test pilots forgot to remove the gust locks before takeoff. So, checklists were introduced. Besides that, the U.S. Army Air Corps began evaluating cockpit and control ergonomics and came to the conclusion that, in the stress of combat, crews needed to be able to reflexively interpret instruments and actuate controls without having to think about it. Part of the solution was to make landing gear handles shaped like a wheel at the end of a lever and a flap handle shaped like a little wing, etc. Previous to that, there might be switches or buttons which looked like any other switch but performed different functions…very confusing. It also helped when the crew couldn’t see the switch if they lost lighting at night, or due to smoke in the cockpit, etc. In fact, even today, some pilots are given what’s called a “blind cockpit check” to ensure they know the position of all the important controls by feel alone. That standardization exists to this day and that’s why most aircraft today have a landing gear handle that’s shaped like a lever with a wheel at the end and flap levers shaped like little wings.
+6An excellent, well executed build. The build itself captures the Kikka’s shape accurately, to include the outlines of the flying surfaces, which took some work judging by the number of parts used in that area. The flight model is good, about as good as can be expected while relying on the basic game physics and drag reduction. The wing area, fuel quantity, weights, wing loading and thrust are all accurate, so that results in a build that flies close to the RL jet. Acceleration (like all early jets, slow), takeoff roll, roll rate, pitch and turn rates and general performance at low altitude is close to RL, IMHO. The high altitude speed is too fast, I think because you used indicated airspeeds and not TAS to reflect the RL’s published “speeds”. However, the published RL performance figures are almost always for TAS, not IAS, and the difference in TAS and IAS is large at high altitude. At low altitude/S.L., where the difference in TAS and IAS is small, your build has a close to RL max level TAS, which is good. The fast airspeed at high altitude is also a result of the SP atmosphere model, which results in speeds being too slow at S.L. and too fast at high altitude. The only way I know of around this is to use a FT formula on the engines that decreases thrust as you climb, increases thrust with speed (ram air effect) or uses a speed brake that deploys when the jet’s max speed is reached. Everyone has their preferences, though I would suggest also use your speed brakes to simulate landing gear drag, as extended L.G. creates a lot of drag when extended. You use the concealed air brakes here with “Airbrake”, though the RL jet didn’t have any speed brakes and none are modeled on your build, which is really odd! What results is: Pull back on the throttle and the jet slows drastically…perhaps the biggest miss for your build. Last difference in what you did and what I would suggest is: More trim authority! Trim effectiveness (clean) is lost below 210 KIAS and though extending the flaps restores trim authority, that’s not how trim effectiveness works IRL. Trim is almost always effective to well below stall airspeed, whether clean or “dirty”. But, very nice build, my write up is long, but I wanted to give a complete evaluation because, regardless of any suggestions I make, this is an excellent build that feels realistic, flies nicely and is fun to fly. Keep up the good work!
+6Standard landing gear parts should increase drag when extended and remove that drag when retracted.
+6Better drag model that increases the induced drag penalty but doesn’t overly penalize for parasite drag.
+6I like a couple of things here: First, you used the symmetric wing, which really imparts the correct “feel” to the flight model. And the flight model as a whole is pretty good. Though I’m never a fan of unlimited fuel, I’ll let that one go unnoticed. Nice work!
+6Well, 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 muzzle loading cannon fire. I do have to say, though, I’m impressed by their capabilities, which are quite significant.
+6Ok, 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
+6A 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.
+6Perfect 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...
+6@randomusername it ain't called that in the flying world. Can't rename something that already exists.
+6Kinda Goofy...
+6The 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.
+6None of what's below is correct; I build many aircraft which are slightly asymmetrical (i.e., cannon or refueling probe on one side but not the other). The primary reason why this happens is that when you place fuselage blocks on one wing (to add details or to "build up" the wing into a realistic profile), then nudge and mirror, the mirroring spawns a new fuselage piece onto the other wing, but not necessarily attached to the opposite attachment point. It usually picks the closest attachment point to the new position, while the original side stays attached to the original attachment point. This often creates a significant rolling motion. The only way to cure this is to detach everything off the wings and then to manually reattach everything, taking the time to ensure everything is attached symmetrically. It actually sounds a lot more difficult than it actually is. If you want to read more about this, here's a link. If you have further questions, let me know.
+6@FalconDynamics you’re correct, the F-5 does have the LEXs and the nose was called the “platypus” nose, according to a USN Aggressor friend of mine who flew with the West Coast unit. And, yes, those features made a big difference, especially at high AoA, but the whole family of jets were/are extremely similar and all fly similarly. And while you can pull the nose around beyond what the standard F-5A can do, it’s just not a high AoA jet like an F-16. Watch the flight demos online…no high AoA slow flight flybys…to attempt to do so that close to the ground would inevitably end in disaster with the jet sinking into the crash. As for the keyboard warriors, that’s legitimate, but unfortunate that anyone wouldn’t at least get some sort of game controller, I wish anyone beyond casual players would get more invested. As for the sloppy drag model, yup, you’re right, it sucks and it’s frustrating that you need to remove and re-add drag, there’s no transonic drag rise, not enough induced (lift created) drag and builds that match RL performance at low airspeed seem to continue to slowly accelerate forever at higher speeds. But I suggest you don’t overthink the flat bottom vs. semi vs. symmetric thing…the flat bottom generally flies like a Cessna wing, the symmetric wing generally flies like a symmetric wing and the semi somewhere in between, validated by my own in game “testing”. It is interesting that @jamesPLANESii found what he calls an interesting “buffet” from 14-20 degrees…which is what symmetric airfoils do IRL, while I think @CoolPeach kinda went overboard in his analysis and added only a little beyond JP’s original post. But, 99.7% of even an F-5’s life, as well as other aircraft, is spent at AoAs less than 14 degrees. While striving to perfect the .3%, don’t forget the big picture is all I’m saying. And credit where credit is due, you’re clearly devoted, detail oriented and it’s a very good build worth all the praise, but don’t let it go to your head. If you want to continue this elsewhere I do have a Discord channel, ChiChiWerx #7355. We can argue the finer points of all things SP, if you would like.
+5@Korzalerke not everything is on Wikipedia…however, I just happened to be reading the Wikipedia entry on the Grumman F4F Wildcat this evening and read that the following that’s related to our conversation: “ On 16 December 1940, the XF4F-3 prototype, BuNo 0383, c/n 356, modified from XF4F-2, was lost under circumstances that suggested that the pilot may have been confused by the poor layout of fuel valves and flap controls and inadvertently turned the fuel valve to "off" immediately after takeoff rather than selecting flaps "up". This was the first fatality in the type.” There were several accidents in those years attributable to poor ergonomics, happily we’ve come a long way since then.
+5Looks 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.
+5This is quite well constructed, the highlight being the landing gear, which really looks like a realistic landing gear. Far too often, builders will make the LG quite skinny or too short, often because it’s sometimes difficult to hide the main gear within the wing (that stupid protruding hub). However, yours looks like they generally do IRL, stout and beefy and strong enough to absorb a rough landing by a newbie fighter pilot. The overall effect is to make your build appear much more realistic, which I immediately noticed. Construction-wise the complaints I have include the fact that the stars and bars are on the opposite wing as they were/are IRL, something many builders get wrong and the strange combined trim and flap controls, which are almost always independent IRL. Hey, at least you used M.G.s and not that strictly-for-ground-targets cannon, so I can actually engage air to air targets. I can also do a loop in 1,500 ft at 400 mph, probably a 12 G loop...but at least it doesn’t turn tooooo slowly, as so many builds do.
+5Oh, 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!
+5Well, 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?
+5Hits: 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.
+5Misses: 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.
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.
+5Looks 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.
+5Congratulations to one of our most talented, respected and reasonable members. Well deserved!
+5Nice move, Jundroo!
+5This 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.
+5Form follows function.
+5I’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.
+5