@RicardoAs1515 yes, the two engines for the AB...same technique that I use. I wouldn’t be concerned that when the AB is activated, you use more fuel than when one engine is operating, which is known as “dry” thrust IRL. ABs dump raw fuel into the burner can (or “combustor”) which is after the the turbine section. Cheap and easy way to get extra power, up to around 50% additional thrust, but very fuel inefficient. And, nearly every AB engine is only operated in AB for limited periods of time, mainly takeoff, landing and combat situations. In fact, the jet I flew that had an AB, the T-38, was limited to 5 mins on the ground and 15 mins airborne. Of course, if you used AB for a full 15 mins, you’d be nearly out of fuel. So, the build technique of using an additional engine simulates both the additional thrust and the horrendously increased fuel consumption from AB use. The MiG-21 usually only flew between 30 and 45 mins and that was with very limited AB use. So, really no need to add extra fuel to a build to make up for a perceived increase in fuel consumption as that’s actually more realistic, IMHO. BTW, this one is on my “favorites” list!
A nice surprise...there are a lot of Fishbed builds, the vast majority are crap, unfortunately. Yours is very good. Accelerates realistically, rolls and turns realistically, as long as speeds are kept above 300 KIAS (RL 21 could turn at speeds below 250 KIAS, you can with this build, but it’s very touchy). The build quality is pretty good as well and the camo looks nice. The view from the cockpit is actually much much better than the RL jet, which is actually one of the Fishbed’s biggest drawbacks. I’ve sat in the MiG-21 and the impression is...claustrophobic. There are some additional differences from the RL jet, it doesn’t model the .98/595 KCAS airspeed limit below 15,000’ which results in adverse handling if exceeded. The energy bleed in high G turns is modeled, that’s good. Nice that you included the aft speed brake which only extends once the tank is jettisoned. I would have liked to see the moving shockcone, the RL shockcone program is easy to find, it’s actually on Wikipedia. You also should have reflected the abysmal lack of fuel and range of the RL jet, instead of overloading it with fuel (which BTW, would weigh about 25,000 lbs IRL). But overall, fun to fly and it captures the fundamentals of the Fishbed.
Small updates probably aren’t going to bring in the revenue necessary to make it worth their time, I think they’re banking on SR2 at this point. Getting the big payback would probably require an SP2, don’t know if they’ve decided to do that yet. I wish they would, because I like the game over SR as it’s optimized for aircraft and the I don’t really want to have to learn a new build style.
@Deputydangle there are many reasons why your build might not replicate exactly the F-14’s performance, default drag is unrealistically high and needs to be edited down, jet thrust doesn’t decrease enough with altitude, so speeds tend to be slow at sea level and too high at altitude and there is no such thing as transonic drag. Simply cranking the power up on SP engines also results in ludicrously unenjoyable acceleration. All that being said, there are ways of coping with these problems, Funky Trees can do a lot. But, recommend using symmetrical wings for any jet fighter, especially the Tomcat, which is designed to fly at high speed and has a symmetric wing IRL. The lifting body effect is harder to replicate; the F-14 isn’t really a big, curved wing shape, it’s a broad, flat area of the rear half of the fuse that works at higher angles of attack, much like a symmetric airfoil. Think about it, the F-14’s fuselage was not designed to produce excess induced drag at zero angle of attack, that would prevent it from flying at fast as possible and the F-14 is a Mach 2.3 jet, very, very fast. Where that rear fuse lift comes in is at high angles of attack, the same at any other symmetric airfoil. I’d recommend using symmetric airfoils for all your wings for your build. That way, you keep the drag at low angles of attack (high speeds) and have the increased lift at higher angles of attack, during slow speed flight as during approach and landing and fighting at slower airspeeds (but don’t get slow in an F-14!).
@MAHADI sure thing. There's probably a better one out there because my AB kicks in above 98% (at 99%). I couldn't figure out a way to get it to only kick in at 100%, but I know others have. But, feel free to use.
Nice. Especially given the limited info on the RL jet. It gulps fuel, as the RL jet certainly did, I am sure. A little gyro-intensive, do you think it might have been a little more true to life if it were a little less stable? I do like it though...I was able to fly it off the tiny, into a box pattern and actually landed it back on the Tiny! Can’t do that too often with a high performance jet.
You made it yourself? SP automatically credits the original builder (me), plus tags the post with the message, “Based on...”. Anyway, glad you liked it enough to pass it off as your own.
The rotary bomb bay is great and the build looks pretty good. The RL B-1 is actually pretty maneuverable, particularly with the wings swept aft, they’ve been known to aileron roll at fairly low altitudes, which requires a good pitch rate to prevent lawn-darting into the ground. Would love to see a more refined version as you get more and more experience with modeling flight characteristics, which are quite hard with variable sweep aircraft because the CoL moves aft when the wings sweep. I know that from my XB-70.
@EngineerOtaku I saw that when I started tearing it apart! The horizontal stab flutters around a bit, not sure why as I assumed it was some sort of FT input. I was wrong. But how you got the speed is fast down low while not ludicrous up high eludes me.
On my favorites list...for the Funky Trees employed here. Pretty sure you have something on the engines as well as the horizontal stab. The low level speed is appropriate, while the speed at altitude is correct...impressive, takes FT to do that.
Not incredibly difficult to fly around, takeoff is easy, though one does have to pay attention in transition to the hover and landing. Forget about spot landings, though. I think the RL example was a nightmare to fly, as were all the early VTOL fighters. Nice rendition.
Ok, there’s one big reason why I wouldn’t upvote this, but it’s not the build itself...this thing’s transformation process is MESMERIZING! I must have hit the “Gear” switch twenty times in awe of the transformation process! It sure is unstable when running down the runway in train mode...but, nice work!
And that’s not a turn and slip from 1944...that’s a modern one, the little “T” tail aircraft in the instrument is a dead giveaway that it’s a turn and slip from a training light plane of recent vintage, take a look at this. That’s why they called them “needle and ball” back in the day. In fact, that entire instrument panel looks straight out of Cessna 152 territory...the little rectangular ammeters and voltmeters are a dead giveaway. Nothing like that during WWII.
I had many thoughts as I threw this one around the sandbox...fantastical, anachronistic, ridiculously maneuverable. The auto-aiming is reminiscent of a RL jet, the Viggen, which had a similar system and was apparently a wild ride when in action. Of course, IRL, the quick adoption of jet fighters over their prop-driven predecessors became inevitable due to their speed advantage in combat. Interestingly enough, I think your flight model reflects a prop fighter’s inability to exceed Mach due to propellor thrust limitations, as well as accurately portraying the performance limitations from your build’s general shape with straight wings and no area rule. The fastest I could get it to was in a steep dive from 30,000’...max of .93 Mach at around 15,000’. Nice modeling, especially if intentional. Of course, freezing the controls to make dive recovery in the transonic regime slower would have been a nice touch. As for the maneuverability and the Cobra maneuver...not sure that big counter rotating prop would have survived that IRL, I’d wager the two discs might collide. Perhaps not if carbon fiber...who knows? Anyway, interesting build.
@ChrisPy nope. As with most modern aircraft, heck I can show you a schematic of the system on the 737, multiple pitot tubes (probably two on the F-22 and F-35) measure airspeed, that data being fed into several air data computers (there are three on the 737), which takes that data and compares and combines it with other data, which includes IRUs (Inertial Reference Units—gyroscopes), GPS data, static air inputs (which measure static air pressure used to measure altitude and rate of climb). I found this pic of the F-22, see the red streamers? Those are the covers for the pitot tubes and static ports.
@ChrisPy correct, Mach is physics, it has always varies with temp and will always vary with temp. So, yes, you are right, even new aircraft use temperature to calculate Mach. And all aircraft, even the brand new ones use pitot tubes. Airflow over the wing can only be measured in that way.
@ChrisPy no, it’s not a simple ratio of airspeed to the speed of sound, because the speed of sound varies based on temperature; the speed of sound will be a lower true airspeed as you climb, but only because air temp is generally less the higher you go. At the same time indicated airspeed will be lower than true airspeed due to the lesser air density at higher altitudes. But the TAS/IAS relationship doesn’t have an effect on Mach. Anyway, in order to calculate Mach, you’d have to be able to measure temperature. In SP, there is no temp, but IRL, a standard day is 15 degrees C at SL with a standard lapse rate of minus 2 degrees per 1000 ft. And, if it’s a standard day (or, really, at any given temperature variation), you can calculate Mach by assuming the temp it will be at any given altitude. So I just assumed that if temp was measured in SP, it would be a standard day and I just built my Mach formula that way. For example, at 10,000’ on a standard day, the temp would be -5 degrees C (15 degrees at SL minus 2 degrees per 1000’ of elevation). I just assumed those temperature values, looked up the Mach numbers for a standard day at each altitude and built a formula that reflected those values. It’s a hack, but it’s close and you can fly my Mach meter, record the values for Mach 1 and look up the standard day speed of sound for each altitude and it’s fairly accurate. My formula is as follows: clamp(TAS / (340 - clamp((Altitude * 0.003937), 0, 43)), 0,3) because Mach 1 is 340 m/s at SL and it decreases by 0.003937 for every meter of altitude (assuming a standard day). I threw in the maximum correction of 43 as the tropopause, where atmospheric temperature remains relatively constant, starts at 36,000’.
@ollielebananiaCFSP I have to try it out on my PC. Unfortunately, on my iPhone, it’s really hard to read the instruments you spent so much time working on.
Interesting, where did you get the Mach formula? Looks completely different than mine (haven’t put it side to side on my PC, just looking at it on mobile).
@FurYuki agreed, I avoid gyros as well. I think you could make all these changes aerodynamically and not resort to using gyros at all on a build like this.
Better than most. There’s way too much pitch change with flap extension, which requires full nose down trim to maintain control, but dynamics are nice, controls are smooth, acceleration is reasonable. You should include the fact that the “reversers” are activated through AG in your description.
Interesting fictional build, fun to fly around. Request you give it a little more trim authority, a tad quicker on the roll and perhaps a little less power. But I like it, nice work!
Very nice build. Nice attention to details and good flight model. I’d give it a little more trim authority and less pitch change with flap extension, but the performance is in the realm of realistic and the handling is nice. Nice work.
A very good rendition. I really like how you employ a little sleight of hand on the build itself to overcome some of the difficult bits, such as the junction between the rear fuse and the canopy glass...you also included the slope on the sides of the canopy, the bullet channels, even that spinner, which may not exactly match the prop, but is close enough to be virtually unnoticeable...very nice attention to detail. Flight dynamics are outstanding, it’s not hyperactive, but it is responsive enough. The only things I noticed is that it doesn’t lose as much energy in turns as I would expect. Roll rate is as I would expect; IRL the Gustavs onward were fairly heavy in roll, as in, stick forces were high. Too bad there’s probably no great way to emulate that in SP. The performance numbers are close, the climb is a little fast, so is top speed at altitude, but it’s not ridiculously off in any way. I kinda like the vibration effect, though it’s a little more than what I would have used, interesting effect overall, though. Very nice work.
@2Papi2Chulo that would be a great project. It wasn’t the fastest, highest flying or most maneuverable of the light/medium WWII bombers...the Mosquito, B-26 or A-26 were each either faster, higher flying or more maneuverable, but the B-25 was fast enough, rugged, very effective at both ultra low and medium altitudes and was, by all accounts, very well liked by its crews and got the job done. Plus, what other medium bomber launched an incredibly ballsy strike on the heart of Japan from an aircraft carrier??? Answer: no other. Great choice.
Quite nice and neat with very disciplined approach to building, especially for the cockpit glass. Can’t imagine I’d have the patience to replicate the process. Flight model is also very good. Typically,
though, reverse pitch or reverse thrust would be enabled through some sort of weight on wheels or ground sensing system, making it impossible to throw it into reverse pitch while airborne. There are exceptions to this (C-17), did you see in your research that the pilot can put this one into reverse pitch while airborne? Also, the trim tab would/should be moveable on the ground, even at zero airspeed, can’t imagine this plane IRL would work otherwise. Anyway, very nice/realistic and fun to fly! Spent a few wasted minutes just flying it in the pattern at Yeager, making nice landings, investigating stall characteristics, etc.
Third SP download this evening, first one I’m upvoting because the flight model isn’t bad. You added hidden SBs because you “suck at landing”...but it isn’t you, any airplane that can’t slow down is hard to land. So, why didn’t you have a set of SBs that automatically deploys with the landing gear and a set that deploys with the flaps? Besides actual SBs, those are both main ways that pilots use to control their speed and slow down for landing IRL. Suggest you employ that trick next time.
Actually, nice work here. @Dervito critiques your work, as follows:
1. Steering wheel is inverted...? No, it’s not, unless he’s seeing something I’m not, there’s no functional cockpit and all controls are normal, not reversed.
2. I see takeoff speed around 105 KIAS, around 120 mph...yes, a little fast...takeoff speed IRL is around 85 mph, so it’s faster than IRL, but not grossly out of whack.
3. Maneuverability is fine...it bobs and weaves just fine around 200 KIAS. I haven’t had it on the Dev Console, but I’m sure it’s pulling at least 5 Gs, which is in the ballpark.
4. Simple wing profile? I disagree, complex enough, 500 parts isn’t that much. If this build was 1,000+ parts with the same wing, I may agree, but 591 parts with full markings isn’t that much.
5. Would like to know where your work “isn’t that neat”. Have to disagree. From stand-off range, perfectly acceptable. What’s the specific complaint?
No, it can have two engines fail at 90 KIAS and there’s enough authority there to rotate and takeoff (barely). Then fly out and come back in and land. Problems include the on screen controls, which makes the rudder tough to lock in, the lack of nose up trim authority and necessity to carry a good amount of speed (no less than 175 KIAS) so as to have enough nose up authority to round out and land.
Quite the interesting build. Very low wing loading coupled with the semi-symmetric airfoil make for low stall speeds (54 KIAS/62 mph), long floaty landings and eggy shape makes nose over upon brake application highly likely. Recommeded approach speed is 85 KIAS with flaps extended (AG3) and touch down no slower than 65 KIAS. I feel about this one as I do all eggs, I like them better later in life and especially if they’re cooked correctly...I do appreciate this one as you’ve spent some care in this one and it’s eggyness gives me sufficient latitude to give you a big thumbs up! 👍
Flies quite smoothly and lands quite smoothly, which I like. The G limiter also acts quite smoothly, I would have limited it to 10 Gs, with a G meter there to prevent over Gs by the pilot, but it’s not nearly as annoying as some G limiters I’ve come across in SP.
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.
Well, I’d say it’s not a bad effort at all. Interestingly enough, though it uses the biggest SP engine possible (though I also assume it’s power has been reduced), it flies a fairly accurate top speed at both SL and at altitude. That’s hard to do in SP, so I wonder if it’s the huge amount of thrust that’s been reduced that’s the trick here. It does have horrendously fast acceleration, though, and that’s a drawback. But it’s simple, while being refreshingly accurate in many ways. One thing that really detracts from the flight model is the use of the Cessna wing...no RL jet fighter uses a flat bottomed airfoil and this build flies like it has a flat bottom airfoil. It pitches wildly at higher speeds, it floats on landing, it’s impossible to set an aimpoint on approach. I changed the airfoils to symmetric to see if that improved things and, guess what? It actually flies much, much better with the symmetric airfoil. I have no idea why builders like that Cessna wing, I hardly ever use it for my builds as the in game symmetric airfoil possesses many of the characteristics of its RL equivalents. If you’re building a Cessna that cruises at 110 mph, fine, use the flat bottomed wing, but if you’re building a jet fighter, especially one like the F-8, the “Last of the Gunfighters”, give it a low drag, high speed symmetric wing!
Quite fun, plus the attitude indicator really works quite well and fits into the time period’s aesthetic. That’s what I like about the fictional builds, they tend to be more “fun focused” and don’t get bogged down by requirements to reflect the RL performance figures. It does accelerate a little too quickly for a WWII Luftwaffe jet/early turbojet, plus you should use a range of 0 to -1 (or 1) for your flaps so that they don’t actually retract beyond the up position and it needs more trim authority, but this one is quite good overall, not ridiculous by any means. Nice work.
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.
@Rakoval500k all things being equal, extending flaps, leading edge flaps or slats generally causes the nose to pitch down slightly. The reason is that extension of these devices causes an increase of lift. In order for everything to remain the same, the wing should decrease its angle of attack to produce the same amount of lift, which is why the nose will generally pitch down slightly. The pitch down is probably not nearly as much as what occurs in SP, though, because what happens IRL isn’t replicated in game. The difference is that extending flaps IRL generally changes the shape of the wing (makes it more curved) and often increases the lifting area of the wing as well, in the case of most modern flap designs, which makes the same wing produce more lift. As SP doesn’t actually consider camber, or changes in camber, except for which type you use when building you plane initially (cambered, semi-symmetric or symmetric options), what you get when you “extend flaps” in game is a simulation of what might happen if you have two different wing surfaces which are unrelated, and one happens to be turned at a greater angle to the relative wind (increased angle of attack). Yes, the wing at the greater angle will produce more lift (up until it exceed the critical AoA), but there is no simulation that the flaps produce a more cambered airfoil with better lift characteristics.
@Alex9000 ok, understood. You do realize that you could post this as an unlisted, then release it to the general audience when it’s ready? This really is a very good build, so wouldn’t want you to lose upvotes or notice by posting stuff that’s not 100% complete.
Way, way better than I initially thought from the two word description and standard screenshots. Roll is nice and snappy, as it ought to be, at least for the earlier Mes (not sure if the Gustav had gotten really heavy in roll yet). Turning seems just right (tested this on the Dev Console and 310 mph / 500 kph yielded around 7.5 Gs). Speeds are close, around 310 mph / 500 kph at SL, 400 mph / 650 kph at 30,000’. Stall is around 80 mph / 130 kph (indicated), which is also close. The acceleration / energy retention may be higher than IRL, but it does slow down in turns, which is very good and it doesn’t accelerate flying straight up, very nice. It is around 35-30% lighter than it should be, but it’s not ridiculously light, though that makes the wing loading is a little light as well and gives it better maneuverability. But SP counts the tail surfaces in wing area, so you’re also fairly close. The construction is pretty good, some interesting techniques for the German cross insignia on the fuse, as well as getting the canopy and fuselage area correct—very nice work. I also like the details, which you seem to have an eye for, such as the fact the split flaps extend slightly different amounts, as IRL. The landing reflects RL problems with that closely spaced LG...it suddenly becomes a touchy, tricky beast as soon as you touchdown, just as IRL. Honestly, it’s a great job at modeling, if it had a little better/more complete description (even without going overboard), it would get at least 25 upvotes, IMHO.
Nice, relatively simple build of a little known rocket fighter prototype with the best part being that you used rockets to power it, so it’s really fun. The pitch rate is adequate and not ridiculously fast, though it could use more pitch and trim authority at lower speeds, as well as for the pattern and landing. It really should roll a lot faster, though, and it should fly a little faster...I’d guesstimate a rocket fighter like this should fly at least 500 KTAS (the Komet was at least that fast), especially down low, and the fastest I saw with this one was around 450 KTAS. Plus, the JATO rocket doesn’t add much thrust, if any...but it’s impressively cool looking with that big flame and lots more smoke! But it’s not too far off and it’s better than making it a 1,000 knot plane. It glides way faster than I would have expected for something with 14 lbs/ft2 of wing loading. But it works if you start out at 10,000’ high key above the runway midpoint and fly 170 KIAS and 20 degrees nose low during the 360 to landing. You do have to carefully time the round out and flare to landing, but it lands quite nicely. The last disappointment was the armament... many builders make the same mistake of using cannons as air to air armament, but the cannons really can’t hit an aerial target unless they’re XML modded. Yours are not here and it’s impossible to hit an aerial target, which is why I stick to using the original wing guns for my builds. Nice job overall.
I got this one up to 3,243 KTAS, around 400 knots faster than you managed. But I had to zoom down from 200,000’ to do it. Very wobbly above 150,000’, but always remained stable enough, though I thought I was going to pull a Neil Armstrong and bounce off the upper atmosphere because the controls were fairly ineffective at that altitude...super fun ride, though!
@RicardoAs1515 yes, the two engines for the AB...same technique that I use. I wouldn’t be concerned that when the AB is activated, you use more fuel than when one engine is operating, which is known as “dry” thrust IRL. ABs dump raw fuel into the burner can (or “combustor”) which is after the the turbine section. Cheap and easy way to get extra power, up to around 50% additional thrust, but very fuel inefficient. And, nearly every AB engine is only operated in AB for limited periods of time, mainly takeoff, landing and combat situations. In fact, the jet I flew that had an AB, the T-38, was limited to 5 mins on the ground and 15 mins airborne. Of course, if you used AB for a full 15 mins, you’d be nearly out of fuel. So, the build technique of using an additional engine simulates both the additional thrust and the horrendously increased fuel consumption from AB use. The MiG-21 usually only flew between 30 and 45 mins and that was with very limited AB use. So, really no need to add extra fuel to a build to make up for a perceived increase in fuel consumption as that’s actually more realistic, IMHO. BTW, this one is on my “favorites” list!
+4A nice surprise...there are a lot of Fishbed builds, the vast majority are crap, unfortunately. Yours is very good. Accelerates realistically, rolls and turns realistically, as long as speeds are kept above 300 KIAS (RL 21 could turn at speeds below 250 KIAS, you can with this build, but it’s very touchy). The build quality is pretty good as well and the camo looks nice. The view from the cockpit is actually much much better than the RL jet, which is actually one of the Fishbed’s biggest drawbacks. I’ve sat in the MiG-21 and the impression is...claustrophobic. There are some additional differences from the RL jet, it doesn’t model the .98/595 KCAS airspeed limit below 15,000’ which results in adverse handling if exceeded. The energy bleed in high G turns is modeled, that’s good. Nice that you included the aft speed brake which only extends once the tank is jettisoned. I would have liked to see the moving shockcone, the RL shockcone program is easy to find, it’s actually on Wikipedia. You also should have reflected the abysmal lack of fuel and range of the RL jet, instead of overloading it with fuel (which BTW, would weigh about 25,000 lbs IRL). But overall, fun to fly and it captures the fundamentals of the Fishbed.
+1Small updates probably aren’t going to bring in the revenue necessary to make it worth their time, I think they’re banking on SR2 at this point. Getting the big payback would probably require an SP2, don’t know if they’ve decided to do that yet. I wish they would, because I like the game over SR as it’s optimized for aircraft and the I don’t really want to have to learn a new build style.
+1@Deputydangle there are many reasons why your build might not replicate exactly the F-14’s performance, default drag is unrealistically high and needs to be edited down, jet thrust doesn’t decrease enough with altitude, so speeds tend to be slow at sea level and too high at altitude and there is no such thing as transonic drag. Simply cranking the power up on SP engines also results in ludicrously unenjoyable acceleration. All that being said, there are ways of coping with these problems, Funky Trees can do a lot. But, recommend using symmetrical wings for any jet fighter, especially the Tomcat, which is designed to fly at high speed and has a symmetric wing IRL. The lifting body effect is harder to replicate; the F-14 isn’t really a big, curved wing shape, it’s a broad, flat area of the rear half of the fuse that works at higher angles of attack, much like a symmetric airfoil. Think about it, the F-14’s fuselage was not designed to produce excess induced drag at zero angle of attack, that would prevent it from flying at fast as possible and the F-14 is a Mach 2.3 jet, very, very fast. Where that rear fuse lift comes in is at high angles of attack, the same at any other symmetric airfoil. I’d recommend using symmetric airfoils for all your wings for your build. That way, you keep the drag at low angles of attack (high speeds) and have the increased lift at higher angles of attack, during slow speed flight as during approach and landing and fighting at slower airspeeds (but don’t get slow in an F-14!).
@MAHADI sure thing. There's probably a better one out there because my AB kicks in above 98% (at 99%). I couldn't figure out a way to get it to only kick in at 100%, but I know others have. But, feel free to use.
I’ll need to test fly it :)
Nice. Especially given the limited info on the RL jet. It gulps fuel, as the RL jet certainly did, I am sure. A little gyro-intensive, do you think it might have been a little more true to life if it were a little less stable? I do like it though...I was able to fly it off the tiny, into a box pattern and actually landed it back on the Tiny! Can’t do that too often with a high performance jet.
You made it yourself? SP automatically credits the original builder (me), plus tags the post with the message, “Based on...”. Anyway, glad you liked it enough to pass it off as your own.
The rotary bomb bay is great and the build looks pretty good. The RL B-1 is actually pretty maneuverable, particularly with the wings swept aft, they’ve been known to aileron roll at fairly low altitudes, which requires a good pitch rate to prevent lawn-darting into the ground. Would love to see a more refined version as you get more and more experience with modeling flight characteristics, which are quite hard with variable sweep aircraft because the CoL moves aft when the wings sweep. I know that from my XB-70.
+4@EngineerOtaku I saw that when I started tearing it apart! The horizontal stab flutters around a bit, not sure why as I assumed it was some sort of FT input. I was wrong. But how you got the speed is fast down low while not ludicrous up high eludes me.
On my favorites list...for the Funky Trees employed here. Pretty sure you have something on the engines as well as the horizontal stab. The low level speed is appropriate, while the speed at altitude is correct...impressive, takes FT to do that.
Not incredibly difficult to fly around, takeoff is easy, though one does have to pay attention in transition to the hover and landing. Forget about spot landings, though. I think the RL example was a nightmare to fly, as were all the early VTOL fighters. Nice rendition.
Ok, there’s one big reason why I wouldn’t upvote this, but it’s not the build itself...this thing’s transformation process is MESMERIZING! I must have hit the “Gear” switch twenty times in awe of the transformation process! It sure is unstable when running down the runway in train mode...but, nice work!
+3And that’s not a turn and slip from 1944...that’s a modern one, the little “T” tail aircraft in the instrument is a dead giveaway that it’s a turn and slip from a training light plane of recent vintage, take a look at this. That’s why they called them “needle and ball” back in the day. In fact, that entire instrument panel looks straight out of Cessna 152 territory...the little rectangular ammeters and voltmeters are a dead giveaway. Nothing like that during WWII.
@GuyFolk I also smell F4U Corsair in the tail feathers...
I had many thoughts as I threw this one around the sandbox...fantastical, anachronistic, ridiculously maneuverable. The auto-aiming is reminiscent of a RL jet, the Viggen, which had a similar system and was apparently a wild ride when in action. Of course, IRL, the quick adoption of jet fighters over their prop-driven predecessors became inevitable due to their speed advantage in combat. Interestingly enough, I think your flight model reflects a prop fighter’s inability to exceed Mach due to propellor thrust limitations, as well as accurately portraying the performance limitations from your build’s general shape with straight wings and no area rule. The fastest I could get it to was in a steep dive from 30,000’...max of .93 Mach at around 15,000’. Nice modeling, especially if intentional. Of course, freezing the controls to make dive recovery in the transonic regime slower would have been a nice touch. As for the maneuverability and the Cobra maneuver...not sure that big counter rotating prop would have survived that IRL, I’d wager the two discs might collide. Perhaps not if carbon fiber...who knows? Anyway, interesting build.
+2@ChrisPy nope. As with most modern aircraft, heck I can show you a schematic of the system on the 737, multiple pitot tubes (probably two on the F-22 and F-35) measure airspeed, that data being fed into several air data computers (there are three on the 737), which takes that data and compares and combines it with other data, which includes IRUs (Inertial Reference Units—gyroscopes), GPS data, static air inputs (which measure static air pressure used to measure altitude and rate of climb). I found this pic of the F-22, see the red streamers? Those are the covers for the pitot tubes and static ports.
@ChrisPy correct, Mach is physics, it has always varies with temp and will always vary with temp. So, yes, you are right, even new aircraft use temperature to calculate Mach. And all aircraft, even the brand new ones use pitot tubes. Airflow over the wing can only be measured in that way.
@ChrisPy no, it’s not a simple ratio of airspeed to the speed of sound, because the speed of sound varies based on temperature; the speed of sound will be a lower true airspeed as you climb, but only because air temp is generally less the higher you go. At the same time indicated airspeed will be lower than true airspeed due to the lesser air density at higher altitudes. But the TAS/IAS relationship doesn’t have an effect on Mach. Anyway, in order to calculate Mach, you’d have to be able to measure temperature. In SP, there is no temp, but IRL, a standard day is 15 degrees C at SL with a standard lapse rate of minus 2 degrees per 1000 ft. And, if it’s a standard day (or, really, at any given temperature variation), you can calculate Mach by assuming the temp it will be at any given altitude. So I just assumed that if temp was measured in SP, it would be a standard day and I just built my Mach formula that way. For example, at 10,000’ on a standard day, the temp would be -5 degrees C (15 degrees at SL minus 2 degrees per 1000’ of elevation). I just assumed those temperature values, looked up the Mach numbers for a standard day at each altitude and built a formula that reflected those values. It’s a hack, but it’s close and you can fly my Mach meter, record the values for Mach 1 and look up the standard day speed of sound for each altitude and it’s fairly accurate. My formula is as follows: clamp(TAS / (340 - clamp((Altitude * 0.003937), 0, 43)), 0,3) because Mach 1 is 340 m/s at SL and it decreases by 0.003937 for every meter of altitude (assuming a standard day). I threw in the maximum correction of 43 as the tropopause, where atmospheric temperature remains relatively constant, starts at 36,000’.
+1@ollielebananiaCFSP I have to try it out on my PC. Unfortunately, on my iPhone, it’s really hard to read the instruments you spent so much time working on.
Interesting, where did you get the Mach formula? Looks completely different than mine (haven’t put it side to side on my PC, just looking at it on mobile).
@FurYuki agreed, I avoid gyros as well. I think you could make all these changes aerodynamically and not resort to using gyros at all on a build like this.
Better than most. There’s way too much pitch change with flap extension, which requires full nose down trim to maintain control, but dynamics are nice, controls are smooth, acceleration is reasonable. You should include the fact that the “reversers” are activated through AG in your description.
Interesting fictional build, fun to fly around. Request you give it a little more trim authority, a tad quicker on the roll and perhaps a little less power. But I like it, nice work!
Very nice build. Nice attention to details and good flight model. I’d give it a little more trim authority and less pitch change with flap extension, but the performance is in the realm of realistic and the handling is nice. Nice work.
+1A very good rendition. I really like how you employ a little sleight of hand on the build itself to overcome some of the difficult bits, such as the junction between the rear fuse and the canopy glass...you also included the slope on the sides of the canopy, the bullet channels, even that spinner, which may not exactly match the prop, but is close enough to be virtually unnoticeable...very nice attention to detail. Flight dynamics are outstanding, it’s not hyperactive, but it is responsive enough. The only things I noticed is that it doesn’t lose as much energy in turns as I would expect. Roll rate is as I would expect; IRL the Gustavs onward were fairly heavy in roll, as in, stick forces were high. Too bad there’s probably no great way to emulate that in SP. The performance numbers are close, the climb is a little fast, so is top speed at altitude, but it’s not ridiculously off in any way. I kinda like the vibration effect, though it’s a little more than what I would have used, interesting effect overall, though. Very nice work.
+2@2Papi2Chulo that would be a great project. It wasn’t the fastest, highest flying or most maneuverable of the light/medium WWII bombers...the Mosquito, B-26 or A-26 were each either faster, higher flying or more maneuverable, but the B-25 was fast enough, rugged, very effective at both ultra low and medium altitudes and was, by all accounts, very well liked by its crews and got the job done. Plus, what other medium bomber launched an incredibly ballsy strike on the heart of Japan from an aircraft carrier??? Answer: no other. Great choice.
+1Nice! I like flying builds like this, powerful, high flying props that haul a lot of bombs.
+1Quite nice and neat with very disciplined approach to building, especially for the cockpit glass. Can’t imagine I’d have the patience to replicate the process. Flight model is also very good. Typically,
+2though, reverse pitch or reverse thrust would be enabled through some sort of weight on wheels or ground sensing system, making it impossible to throw it into reverse pitch while airborne. There are exceptions to this (C-17), did you see in your research that the pilot can put this one into reverse pitch while airborne? Also, the trim tab would/should be moveable on the ground, even at zero airspeed, can’t imagine this plane IRL would work otherwise. Anyway, very nice/realistic and fun to fly! Spent a few wasted minutes just flying it in the pattern at Yeager, making nice landings, investigating stall characteristics, etc.
Third SP download this evening, first one I’m upvoting because the flight model isn’t bad. You added hidden SBs because you “suck at landing”...but it isn’t you, any airplane that can’t slow down is hard to land. So, why didn’t you have a set of SBs that automatically deploys with the landing gear and a set that deploys with the flaps? Besides actual SBs, those are both main ways that pilots use to control their speed and slow down for landing IRL. Suggest you employ that trick next time.
+1Post some creations...hopefully, quality creations. Or post your thoughts and have people upvote them.
Nice work, good flight model. Stately without being ponderous.
Actually, nice work here. @Dervito critiques your work, as follows:
+11. Steering wheel is inverted...? No, it’s not, unless he’s seeing something I’m not, there’s no functional cockpit and all controls are normal, not reversed.
2. I see takeoff speed around 105 KIAS, around 120 mph...yes, a little fast...takeoff speed IRL is around 85 mph, so it’s faster than IRL, but not grossly out of whack.
3. Maneuverability is fine...it bobs and weaves just fine around 200 KIAS. I haven’t had it on the Dev Console, but I’m sure it’s pulling at least 5 Gs, which is in the ballpark.
4. Simple wing profile? I disagree, complex enough, 500 parts isn’t that much. If this build was 1,000+ parts with the same wing, I may agree, but 591 parts with full markings isn’t that much.
5. Would like to know where your work “isn’t that neat”. Have to disagree. From stand-off range, perfectly acceptable. What’s the specific complaint?
No, it can have two engines fail at 90 KIAS and there’s enough authority there to rotate and takeoff (barely). Then fly out and come back in and land. Problems include the on screen controls, which makes the rudder tough to lock in, the lack of nose up trim authority and necessity to carry a good amount of speed (no less than 175 KIAS) so as to have enough nose up authority to round out and land.
EFTOCs are challenging and fun.
It’s a Czech Su-7 with Polish insignia on the tail?
Quite the interesting build. Very low wing loading coupled with the semi-symmetric airfoil make for low stall speeds (54 KIAS/62 mph), long floaty landings and eggy shape makes nose over upon brake application highly likely. Recommeded approach speed is 85 KIAS with flaps extended (AG3) and touch down no slower than 65 KIAS. I feel about this one as I do all eggs, I like them better later in life and especially if they’re cooked correctly...I do appreciate this one as you’ve spent some care in this one and it’s eggyness gives me sufficient latitude to give you a big thumbs up! 👍
+1@asteroidbook345 of course.
Flies quite smoothly and lands quite smoothly, which I like. The G limiter also acts quite smoothly, I would have limited it to 10 Gs, with a G meter there to prevent over Gs by the pilot, but it’s not nearly as annoying as some G limiters I’ve come across in SP.
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.
+5Well, I’d say it’s not a bad effort at all. Interestingly enough, though it uses the biggest SP engine possible (though I also assume it’s power has been reduced), it flies a fairly accurate top speed at both SL and at altitude. That’s hard to do in SP, so I wonder if it’s the huge amount of thrust that’s been reduced that’s the trick here. It does have horrendously fast acceleration, though, and that’s a drawback. But it’s simple, while being refreshingly accurate in many ways. One thing that really detracts from the flight model is the use of the Cessna wing...no RL jet fighter uses a flat bottomed airfoil and this build flies like it has a flat bottom airfoil. It pitches wildly at higher speeds, it floats on landing, it’s impossible to set an aimpoint on approach. I changed the airfoils to symmetric to see if that improved things and, guess what? It actually flies much, much better with the symmetric airfoil. I have no idea why builders like that Cessna wing, I hardly ever use it for my builds as the in game symmetric airfoil possesses many of the characteristics of its RL equivalents. If you’re building a Cessna that cruises at 110 mph, fine, use the flat bottomed wing, but if you’re building a jet fighter, especially one like the F-8, the “Last of the Gunfighters”, give it a low drag, high speed symmetric wing!
+1Quite fun, plus the attitude indicator really works quite well and fits into the time period’s aesthetic. That’s what I like about the fictional builds, they tend to be more “fun focused” and don’t get bogged down by requirements to reflect the RL performance figures. It does accelerate a little too quickly for a WWII Luftwaffe jet/early turbojet, plus you should use a range of 0 to -1 (or 1) for your flaps so that they don’t actually retract beyond the up position and it needs more trim authority, but this one is quite good overall, not ridiculous by any means. Nice work.
+1This 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.
+5Glides like brick!
+1@Rakoval500k all things being equal, extending flaps, leading edge flaps or slats generally causes the nose to pitch down slightly. The reason is that extension of these devices causes an increase of lift. In order for everything to remain the same, the wing should decrease its angle of attack to produce the same amount of lift, which is why the nose will generally pitch down slightly. The pitch down is probably not nearly as much as what occurs in SP, though, because what happens IRL isn’t replicated in game. The difference is that extending flaps IRL generally changes the shape of the wing (makes it more curved) and often increases the lifting area of the wing as well, in the case of most modern flap designs, which makes the same wing produce more lift. As SP doesn’t actually consider camber, or changes in camber, except for which type you use when building you plane initially (cambered, semi-symmetric or symmetric options), what you get when you “extend flaps” in game is a simulation of what might happen if you have two different wing surfaces which are unrelated, and one happens to be turned at a greater angle to the relative wind (increased angle of attack). Yes, the wing at the greater angle will produce more lift (up until it exceed the critical AoA), but there is no simulation that the flaps produce a more cambered airfoil with better lift characteristics.
@Alex9000 ok, understood. You do realize that you could post this as an unlisted, then release it to the general audience when it’s ready? This really is a very good build, so wouldn’t want you to lose upvotes or notice by posting stuff that’s not 100% complete.
Way, way better than I initially thought from the two word description and standard screenshots. Roll is nice and snappy, as it ought to be, at least for the earlier Mes (not sure if the Gustav had gotten really heavy in roll yet). Turning seems just right (tested this on the Dev Console and 310 mph / 500 kph yielded around 7.5 Gs). Speeds are close, around 310 mph / 500 kph at SL, 400 mph / 650 kph at 30,000’. Stall is around 80 mph / 130 kph (indicated), which is also close. The acceleration / energy retention may be higher than IRL, but it does slow down in turns, which is very good and it doesn’t accelerate flying straight up, very nice. It is around 35-30% lighter than it should be, but it’s not ridiculously light, though that makes the wing loading is a little light as well and gives it better maneuverability. But SP counts the tail surfaces in wing area, so you’re also fairly close. The construction is pretty good, some interesting techniques for the German cross insignia on the fuse, as well as getting the canopy and fuselage area correct—very nice work. I also like the details, which you seem to have an eye for, such as the fact the split flaps extend slightly different amounts, as IRL. The landing reflects RL problems with that closely spaced LG...it suddenly becomes a touchy, tricky beast as soon as you touchdown, just as IRL. Honestly, it’s a great job at modeling, if it had a little better/more complete description (even without going overboard), it would get at least 25 upvotes, IMHO.
+2Nice, relatively simple build of a little known rocket fighter prototype with the best part being that you used rockets to power it, so it’s really fun. The pitch rate is adequate and not ridiculously fast, though it could use more pitch and trim authority at lower speeds, as well as for the pattern and landing. It really should roll a lot faster, though, and it should fly a little faster...I’d guesstimate a rocket fighter like this should fly at least 500 KTAS (the Komet was at least that fast), especially down low, and the fastest I saw with this one was around 450 KTAS. Plus, the JATO rocket doesn’t add much thrust, if any...but it’s impressively cool looking with that big flame and lots more smoke! But it’s not too far off and it’s better than making it a 1,000 knot plane. It glides way faster than I would have expected for something with 14 lbs/ft2 of wing loading. But it works if you start out at 10,000’ high key above the runway midpoint and fly 170 KIAS and 20 degrees nose low during the 360 to landing. You do have to carefully time the round out and flare to landing, but it lands quite nicely. The last disappointment was the armament... many builders make the same mistake of using cannons as air to air armament, but the cannons really can’t hit an aerial target unless they’re XML modded. Yours are not here and it’s impossible to hit an aerial target, which is why I stick to using the original wing guns for my builds. Nice job overall.
+2MUST upvote and he Beetle!
I got this one up to 3,243 KTAS, around 400 knots faster than you managed. But I had to zoom down from 200,000’ to do it. Very wobbly above 150,000’, but always remained stable enough, though I thought I was going to pull a Neil Armstrong and bounce off the upper atmosphere because the controls were fairly ineffective at that altitude...super fun ride, though!
+1