Nice build, good flight model. You did make one odd choice with the mirror-imaged “USAF” on the bottom of the left wing, I have to wonder where that came from?
@WEEB if you ever need help with a build, especially with the flight model, just ask me. I’m willing to test things out and make suggestions. If not me, many people know how to adjust flight models for realistic behavior, all you have to do is ask.
@jamesPLANESii really? I mean, it looks impressive, but have you tried to fly it? It's got the weirdest flight model I've seen in awhile and even the creator admits that it has trouble taking off. The reason why it has trouble taking off is that the CoM is way too far in front of the main gear wheels. If you are looking for a reasonable rotation speed, you have to move the CoM very close to the main gear wheels as the pivot point for takeoff rotation is located there. If your CoM is too far in front, the elevator can't produce enough downforce at takeoff speeds (typically less than 200 KIAS) to lift the nose up. I'm still upvoting it now just for the build itself, but I'd recommend tweaking a few things and rereleasing it later, possibly with a D-21 on top.
@PannerTerkins gee, I wish I had more time to build. But as I've gotten into other hobbies and pastimes to occupy what little time I do have, so not sure when I'll resume. Thanks for asking, though.
200 KIAS liftoff wasn’t actually unrealistic. Fully loaded out in hot weather, the bomber version of the “Thud” would often lift off at 230 KIAS. The WW, though, was a bit lighter without all those iron bombs, so takeoffs were a bit slower. All those Century series jets had high takeoff, approach and landing speeds.
Maybe I’m wrong, but this seems like this is @Eggplant ‘s F-105 that’s minimally modified? https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/w7VWX2/Republic-F-105D-Thunderchief
@Mage2IsTriggered interesting…so it’s not used exclusively as a torpedo bomber in that game and based on your assessment maybe it would have been more survivable if it had been employed as something other than a torpedo bomber. Part of the TBD’s issues was it’s tactics, low and slow to allow the torpedo delivery, which made it even more highly vulnerable. It’s also interesting that it does well against biplanes in WT, which I would expect IRL, as it’s faster than the typical biplane. WT battles are more like scrums with dozens of different types, in which you have as much of a chance to meet up with a biplane as a P-40 in the same battle.
@Mage2IsTriggered yes, this build looks very good. But I have to ask about your WT comment…I’ve played a little bit of WT, but never the TBD. IRL, the TBD was completely obsolete by the time the USN faced the Japanese in WWII, being too slow along with a suicidal delivery profile, and was absolutely slaughtered during the Battle of Midway. Making the sacrifice worse was the fact that the U.S. had a completely ineffective aerial torpedo at the time and scored zero hits during the battle. So, in WT, how is the TBD insanely powerful? Are you mixing this one up with the Dauntless SBD dive bomber, which despite being an earlier design, was actually a very good design with a great combat record?
Nice build…can you imagine flying one of these beasts from the Azores to NYC and back?!? I flew one leg yesterday from Lisbon to Dulles and that took almost 8 hours…in a jet! One of these things would have taken around 20 hours round trip! No thanks! Edit: This thing is 25 tons (tonnes…?) of fun! Just the right blend of features, reality and novelty to fritter away a few minutes trying to put a bomb on the deck of the Beast and get blown out of the sky!
@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.
@FalconDynamics it floats on landing and it has a distinct stall “break”. Sure the F-5 doesn’t use the NACA0009 airfoil, but the wing it does use is much closer in terms of drag and lift characteristics than any flat bottomed airfoil. Your build’s flight model is good, but it would have been closer to the real thing if you’d use the symmetric airfoil. How do I know? I have 500 instructor hours in the T-38, same family as the F-5, both flew very similarly and I swapped your build’s wing for the symmetric airfoil and I think it was more spot-on than before. And that’s from real life experience.
So, why are you using the Cessna wing? This thing should be using the symmetric airfoil, as the RL jet does. I may try changing it myself to see how it behaves. Update: I changed the wing to symmetric and it now flies like the real thing, much better energy loss at high AoA (7 G turn at max thrust, starts at 420 KIAS, 180 degrees decelerates to 350 KIAS) and it departs if you pull too much AoA.
Wow, the more I fly this, the more I'm impressed. It's very smooth, very similar to real life. That might be attributed to some of your formulas for the stab, though I would have made the trim much more effective. But it rolls nicely, pitches nicely, it's fairly easy to fly level, unlike every other build, even mine.
@FalconDynamics Ok, thanks. Flies well enough, actually the flight model is pretty good...well, the fact that the trim doesn't really do anything isn't a unique issue, seems quite prevalent in SP builds. But it's very smooth overall, doesn't fly at ridiculous speeds (though so many weapons would make the jet much more sluggish IRL), pulls a realistic amount of G. Again, just a quick first look, but it seems you were trying to emulate the real thing. How did you build the altimeter, if I may ask?
The biggest issue is that the build's vertical stabs start oscillating around 250 KIAS, sometimes quite severely, to the point that it's pulling .5 - 2 Gs up and down. Seems to vary with altitude and eventually goes away at higher airspeed (400 KIAS or so). Haven't had a chance to dive into the stab formula to see why it might be doing this. It may have something to do with auto-trim...? The F-5 didn't have auto-trim, though it did have an auto/manual flap setting option. Is the oscillation related to the 20 FPS issue?
This is an exceptional build, the flight model is outstanding, reminds me of a couple of my builds. One of the only things I would have done differently would have been to use the symmetric airfoil, just like the RL jet, which would fix that float on landing. I could write more details, but overall, excellent, really, really excellent.
@AlbertanPlaneMaker Yes, I’m older, have flown for more than 30 years. Retired USAF U-2, T-37, T-38, KC-135 pilot, instructor pilot, evaluator pilot. ATP type rated in the CRJ-200 and the 737. Currently fly for a major airline. Training on the 756 as we speak. When I was a kid, I built plastic model aircraft and RC aircraft. SP has that same feel and is why I’ve enjoyed it in the past.
Fun video, but including a dev console window at the top with the “VerticalG” readout would be informative. I, for one, am doubtful that the RL MiG-19 could fly an Immelmann starting at 270 KIAS without falling out of the sky. I’d also like to see an engagement from the Mirage’s POV, to see if that build has the delta wing’s characteristic “bat turn” capability with the accompanying energy loss leaving it slow at the end of the first turn. I’ll check out both your builds as I’m intrigued enough after watching this.
Dynamically, this is very good. Flies very well, not unrealistically as so many other builds. Accelerates…and decelerates realistically. Loses speed in the turns. Takes off and lands well. Nice work.
@LegendaryPilot yes, he is! Shot down over the Soviet Union on 1 May 1960 by an S-75 Dvina (SA-2 Guideline) missile while cruising above 65,000’. After his bailout and subsequent imprisonment for espionage in the USSR, he was repatriated in 1962 in exchange for Rudolf Abel, a British-born KGB spy who was captured in the U.S. After repatriation and testimony before Congress and much criticism for not having taking his issued “suicide pill”, Powers left the CIA, worked for Lockheed and finally wound up piloting a news helicopter in Los Angeles in the 1970s. In 1977, Powers and his cameraman were killed when his helicopter ran out of fuel short of Burbank airport. So, yes, same Francis Gary Powers.
@GorillaGuerrilla the link is incomplete and doesn’t take me anywhere when I paste it into the browser. Can you repost and I’ll take a look? To create links in comments or posts, use the following format: [whatever text you want to use for your link] (https//webpagelink.com). Be sure to delete the space between the “]” and “(“ and the link will be created when you post your comment.
@GorillaGuerrilla yes, IMHO, just to make a WAG, SP physics is around 80% accurate, but only 65% of the time. Don’t bother with the area rule test as there aren’t any supersonic effects in game, which is why swept wings make no performance difference. One of the biggest shortfalls, in my opinion. I’d love to see the rapid increase in drag in the transonic range, but as there isn’t even real “airflow” in game, so it’s not unexpected. The way drag and lift increase in game is because the SP environment simply increases drag and lift as a part or wing moves “faster”. It’s a calculation, not actual airflow, which is why putting one part behind another doesn’t block the “airflow”. Sadly, no way to fix it either.
@GorillaGuerrilla yes, I am well aware of burying wings to simulate lifting body effects. Useful for emulating builds such as F-14, F-16 or Space Shuttle. Also useful in simply using a built up wing instead of the stock block wings available. But this post doesn’t really have much to do with that, it’s really about the different characteristics between the flat, semi-symmetrical and symmetrical wings in SP; my point being there is much more modeled in game than people realize in those options. However, to your point: You’re not the first to maintain that there are brilliant builders who can defy the in game physics model. I say you can’t really do so, though you can exploit the characteristics and gaps of the in game modeling to achieve some interesting and unexpected characteristics. Burying a wing in a fuse and having it still able to produce lift is a perfect example of a gap in the SP physics model that can be exploited—that’s not something that happens IRL. IRL, lifting bodies don’t conceal a wing inside, their very shape produces left as they move through the air at an angle (AoA). FT and good old fashioned XML editing gives the ability to manipulate attributes of individual parts, but it doesn’t allow anyone to alter the basic code of the physics engine. All the code is there and all the variables are being crunched to produce a rational result. A good example of this is drag reduction/deletion—the builder may be causing the physics engine to use “0” as the drag value on that part, but the physics engine is always there in the background, working as expected. So, I’m not sure what you mean by “brilliant” people defying SP physics because you can’t—the SP physics code will always be operational in game.
@GorillaGuerrilla do you understand how that happens in real life and how would you propose to replicate that behavior? If you’d like an explanation, I can answer any questions you might have.
Very nice…I’m a big fan of this era, which I feel can be accurately modeled within SP. If I were to make any suggestions, I would suggest the trim have more nose up authority. Full trim on your model only begins to be effective at around 325 KIAS, it really ought to be effective as low as you can get it or even as low as stall speed…because that’s more accurate to RL. But performance is in the ballpark and it’s super fun to fly, particularly when gunning targets out of the sky.
@kasachstanball as long as it’s posted as a successor build (which is usually automatic), I have no problem with you using it for your build.
Nice build, good flight model. You did make one odd choice with the mirror-imaged “USAF” on the bottom of the left wing, I have to wonder where that came from?
+1@ThePogKing yes.
+2@MAHADI of course!
@LowtherInc no, doesn’t fly that well. But it was built more than 7 years ago when I didn’t really understand SP dynamics.
+1Beautiful flight model. I’m jealous.
+2Excellent build!
+1@WEEB you’ll have to tag me in a private post so that I can take a look. And, yes, the bobbing is an issue with most builds.
@WEEB if you ever need help with a build, especially with the flight model, just ask me. I’m willing to test things out and make suggestions. If not me, many people know how to adjust flight models for realistic behavior, all you have to do is ask.
+1@jamesPLANESii really? I mean, it looks impressive, but have you tried to fly it? It's got the weirdest flight model I've seen in awhile and even the creator admits that it has trouble taking off. The reason why it has trouble taking off is that the CoM is way too far in front of the main gear wheels. If you are looking for a reasonable rotation speed, you have to move the CoM very close to the main gear wheels as the pivot point for takeoff rotation is located there. If your CoM is too far in front, the elevator can't produce enough downforce at takeoff speeds (typically less than 200 KIAS) to lift the nose up. I'm still upvoting it now just for the build itself, but I'd recommend tweaking a few things and rereleasing it later, possibly with a D-21 on top.
+3@PannerTerkins gee, I wish I had more time to build. But as I've gotten into other hobbies and pastimes to occupy what little time I do have, so not sure when I'll resume. Thanks for asking, though.
200 KIAS liftoff wasn’t actually unrealistic. Fully loaded out in hot weather, the bomber version of the “Thud” would often lift off at 230 KIAS. The WW, though, was a bit lighter without all those iron bombs, so takeoffs were a bit slower. All those Century series jets had high takeoff, approach and landing speeds.
+1@EngieWeeb perhaps I’m wrong.
Maybe I’m wrong, but this seems like this is @Eggplant ‘s F-105 that’s minimally modified? https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/w7VWX2/Republic-F-105D-Thunderchief
Seems like a great build, but, unfortunately, I can’t fly it from the pilot’s seat!
@Graingy I’m still here. But very low-key.
@Mage2IsTriggered I write overly formally? Didn’t think I was any more so than you…how so?
+1@Mage2IsTriggered interesting…so it’s not used exclusively as a torpedo bomber in that game and based on your assessment maybe it would have been more survivable if it had been employed as something other than a torpedo bomber. Part of the TBD’s issues was it’s tactics, low and slow to allow the torpedo delivery, which made it even more highly vulnerable. It’s also interesting that it does well against biplanes in WT, which I would expect IRL, as it’s faster than the typical biplane. WT battles are more like scrums with dozens of different types, in which you have as much of a chance to meet up with a biplane as a P-40 in the same battle.
+1@Mage2IsTriggered yes, this build looks very good. But I have to ask about your WT comment…I’ve played a little bit of WT, but never the TBD. IRL, the TBD was completely obsolete by the time the USN faced the Japanese in WWII, being too slow along with a suicidal delivery profile, and was absolutely slaughtered during the Battle of Midway. Making the sacrifice worse was the fact that the U.S. had a completely ineffective aerial torpedo at the time and scored zero hits during the battle. So, in WT, how is the TBD insanely powerful? Are you mixing this one up with the Dauntless SBD dive bomber, which despite being an earlier design, was actually a very good design with a great combat record?
+1@Sgtk did you fly this one?
+1Nice build…can you imagine flying one of these beasts from the Azores to NYC and back?!? I flew one leg yesterday from Lisbon to Dulles and that took almost 8 hours…in a jet! One of these things would have taken around 20 hours round trip! No thanks! Edit: This thing is 25 tons (tonnes…?) of fun! Just the right blend of features, reality and novelty to fritter away a few minutes trying to put a bomb on the deck of the Beast and get blown out of the sky!
+1@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@FalconDynamics it floats on landing and it has a distinct stall “break”. Sure the F-5 doesn’t use the NACA0009 airfoil, but the wing it does use is much closer in terms of drag and lift characteristics than any flat bottomed airfoil. Your build’s flight model is good, but it would have been closer to the real thing if you’d use the symmetric airfoil. How do I know? I have 500 instructor hours in the T-38, same family as the F-5, both flew very similarly and I swapped your build’s wing for the symmetric airfoil and I think it was more spot-on than before. And that’s from real life experience.
+2So, why are you using the Cessna wing? This thing should be using the symmetric airfoil, as the RL jet does. I may try changing it myself to see how it behaves. Update: I changed the wing to symmetric and it now flies like the real thing, much better energy loss at high AoA (7 G turn at max thrust, starts at 420 KIAS, 180 degrees decelerates to 350 KIAS) and it departs if you pull too much AoA.
+1Wow, the more I fly this, the more I'm impressed. It's very smooth, very similar to real life. That might be attributed to some of your formulas for the stab, though I would have made the trim much more effective. But it rolls nicely, pitches nicely, it's fairly easy to fly level, unlike every other build, even mine.
@FalconDynamics Ok, thanks. Flies well enough, actually the flight model is pretty good...well, the fact that the trim doesn't really do anything isn't a unique issue, seems quite prevalent in SP builds. But it's very smooth overall, doesn't fly at ridiculous speeds (though so many weapons would make the jet much more sluggish IRL), pulls a realistic amount of G. Again, just a quick first look, but it seems you were trying to emulate the real thing. How did you build the altimeter, if I may ask?
The biggest issue is that the build's vertical stabs start oscillating around 250 KIAS, sometimes quite severely, to the point that it's pulling .5 - 2 Gs up and down. Seems to vary with altitude and eventually goes away at higher airspeed (400 KIAS or so). Haven't had a chance to dive into the stab formula to see why it might be doing this. It may have something to do with auto-trim...? The F-5 didn't have auto-trim, though it did have an auto/manual flap setting option. Is the oscillation related to the 20 FPS issue?
@Planebuilder2123 you did? Where is it?
ChiChiWerx #7355
@ollielebananiaCFSP sure, why not?
This is an exceptional build, the flight model is outstanding, reminds me of a couple of my builds. One of the only things I would have done differently would have been to use the symmetric airfoil, just like the RL jet, which would fix that float on landing. I could write more details, but overall, excellent, really, really excellent.
+2@AlbertanPlaneMaker Yes, I’m older, have flown for more than 30 years. Retired USAF U-2, T-37, T-38, KC-135 pilot, instructor pilot, evaluator pilot. ATP type rated in the CRJ-200 and the 737. Currently fly for a major airline. Training on the 756 as we speak. When I was a kid, I built plastic model aircraft and RC aircraft. SP has that same feel and is why I’ve enjoyed it in the past.
+3Cool bear, how’d you do it?
+2Fun video, but including a dev console window at the top with the “VerticalG” readout would be informative. I, for one, am doubtful that the RL MiG-19 could fly an Immelmann starting at 270 KIAS without falling out of the sky. I’d also like to see an engagement from the Mirage’s POV, to see if that build has the delta wing’s characteristic “bat turn” capability with the accompanying energy loss leaving it slow at the end of the first turn. I’ll check out both your builds as I’m intrigued enough after watching this.
@SirLoafsAlot it’s ChiChiWerx #7355
Simple, yet satisfying.
+1Nice build, fun to fly. I like that you used the symmetric wing and kept the performance numbers fairly close.
Dynamically, this is very good. Flies very well, not unrealistically as so many other builds. Accelerates…and decelerates realistically. Loses speed in the turns. Takes off and lands well. Nice work.
+3@Emirates380 I’m not a mod…
@LegendaryPilot yes, he is! Shot down over the Soviet Union on 1 May 1960 by an S-75 Dvina (SA-2 Guideline) missile while cruising above 65,000’. After his bailout and subsequent imprisonment for espionage in the USSR, he was repatriated in 1962 in exchange for Rudolf Abel, a British-born KGB spy who was captured in the U.S. After repatriation and testimony before Congress and much criticism for not having taking his issued “suicide pill”, Powers left the CIA, worked for Lockheed and finally wound up piloting a news helicopter in Los Angeles in the 1970s. In 1977, Powers and his cameraman were killed when his helicopter ran out of fuel short of Burbank airport. So, yes, same Francis Gary Powers.
@Yudha hello, yes, very old post. “CollisionsOff=True”.
@MrShenanigansSP link?
@MrShenanigansSP sure, what are you building?
Another thing to note here is the amount of drag created by each airfoil, which isn’t represented directly by a graph here. Usually, an airfoil’s performance is represented by 2 curves, known as the Lift/Drag curves, or L/D. However, you can indirectly infer the amount of drag created by the amount of lift created…the more lift created, the more drag is created, always. This is important as one can demonstrably see that the symmetric airfoil creates far less drag at higher speeds than the other two airfoil shapes.
+3Mach Calculator
@GorillaGuerrilla the link is incomplete and doesn’t take me anywhere when I paste it into the browser. Can you repost and I’ll take a look? To create links in comments or posts, use the following format: [whatever text you want to use for your link] (https//webpagelink.com). Be sure to delete the space between the “]” and “(“ and the link will be created when you post your comment.
@GorillaGuerrilla yes, IMHO, just to make a WAG, SP physics is around 80% accurate, but only 65% of the time. Don’t bother with the area rule test as there aren’t any supersonic effects in game, which is why swept wings make no performance difference. One of the biggest shortfalls, in my opinion. I’d love to see the rapid increase in drag in the transonic range, but as there isn’t even real “airflow” in game, so it’s not unexpected. The way drag and lift increase in game is because the SP environment simply increases drag and lift as a part or wing moves “faster”. It’s a calculation, not actual airflow, which is why putting one part behind another doesn’t block the “airflow”. Sadly, no way to fix it either.
@GorillaGuerrilla yes, I am well aware of burying wings to simulate lifting body effects. Useful for emulating builds such as F-14, F-16 or Space Shuttle. Also useful in simply using a built up wing instead of the stock block wings available. But this post doesn’t really have much to do with that, it’s really about the different characteristics between the flat, semi-symmetrical and symmetrical wings in SP; my point being there is much more modeled in game than people realize in those options. However, to your point: You’re not the first to maintain that there are brilliant builders who can defy the in game physics model. I say you can’t really do so, though you can exploit the characteristics and gaps of the in game modeling to achieve some interesting and unexpected characteristics. Burying a wing in a fuse and having it still able to produce lift is a perfect example of a gap in the SP physics model that can be exploited—that’s not something that happens IRL. IRL, lifting bodies don’t conceal a wing inside, their very shape produces left as they move through the air at an angle (AoA). FT and good old fashioned XML editing gives the ability to manipulate attributes of individual parts, but it doesn’t allow anyone to alter the basic code of the physics engine. All the code is there and all the variables are being crunched to produce a rational result. A good example of this is drag reduction/deletion—the builder may be causing the physics engine to use “0” as the drag value on that part, but the physics engine is always there in the background, working as expected. So, I’m not sure what you mean by “brilliant” people defying SP physics because you can’t—the SP physics code will always be operational in game.
@GorillaGuerrilla do you understand how that happens in real life and how would you propose to replicate that behavior? If you’d like an explanation, I can answer any questions you might have.
Very nice…I’m a big fan of this era, which I feel can be accurately modeled within SP. If I were to make any suggestions, I would suggest the trim have more nose up authority. Full trim on your model only begins to be effective at around 325 KIAS, it really ought to be effective as low as you can get it or even as low as stall speed…because that’s more accurate to RL. But performance is in the ballpark and it’s super fun to fly, particularly when gunning targets out of the sky.
+3