@vonhubert yes, noted, some of what I had to do was guesswork as they never actually built a prototype aircraft. I figured there would have been some modifications between design and final product, so I had a bit of carte blanche!
@F104Deathtrap yeah, the "flight manual" is pretty detailed, not sure if I mentioned trim specifically or not...I always use trim in my builds, one way or another, just more realistic, IMHO
Well, it really captures the Hornet's "stance"...great work on the gear, not overly complex, but just enough that it looks right. Nice rendition of a very common build, but better than 99% of the other ones out there.
@Sarpanitu ok, noted. Did not know exactly how to do that, now it's clear. Kind of like it was during WWII when aircraft were fielded still having problems--heck, the P-38s had compressibility issues and the tail would fall off at time to time all the way until the end of the war, things they were struggling to find solutions for in flight test until the end. If I post a "B" or "V2". version, I'll be sure to correct it.
@RogueFalcon376 no, sorry. WWII was a historical fact, not celebrating what the National Socialists did, just presenting an accurate representation of what happened. Best to NOT forget the Nazis and never repeat those crimes.
@oDDDity yes, agree, dihedral causes the aircraft to be longitudinally unstable in SP, but it's not the same constant roll in one direction or the other. I guess people asking this question should be a little more specific in saying what their exact problem is.
@Tigozawr, if you have ruled out a 1. weight asymmetry, or 2. a form asymmetry (big object on one side, small or no object on the other side creating a difference in aerodynamic drag), it has to be the wing build issue. You need to check the clipping to attachment points like this: Place an object, where you want it, on one wing (check coordinates with Fine Tuner). MANUALLY place a copy of that object at the same point on the opposite wing--you should be able to manually clip it in almost exactly the opposite position. THEN, nudge or move both objects exactly to where you want them on the opposite wings--they should be symmetrical, though. If that doesn't fix it, then refer to 1. and 2. above. Oh, yeah, NEVER use mirroring!
Very cool! The past few days haven't been good for original, nice-looking builds, but yours breaks the drought. I can imagine, though, that Heinkel would have had a nightmare of a time trying to incorporate those props into the booms that way...I can see the Allied news headlines: "Nazi torpedo bomber's tail separates in flight...take that Adolf!"
My explanation may be long and involved, but here's why the roll is happening. You're not going to like the answer, which is to take everything off the wing and manually position everything so that the attach points are symmetrical. Often, people will read the explanation and say "But, you just have to make sure the weights are equal on both sides...!" No. There's an interaction with the wings and attach points in SP that makes it so that the same things need to be attached on both sides to the opposing attach points.
Well, your KH-240-2 is 141,000+ lbs, the A380 is over 1M lbs., so it's going to take considerably more fuel (if the difference is in fuel alone, the weight would be equivalent to 132,000 gallons). Plus your build is significantly smaller, 140+ ft wingspan may not seem that much smaller than 262 ft, think about the "cube rule".
In aircraft, changing the direction of thrust to enable vertical takeoffs or landings or to enable extreme maneuvering. Aircraft with thrust vectoring include the AV-8B Harrier and the F-22 Raptor, among others. In SP, there is a VTOL engine and separate nozzles you can use together to impart thrust vectoring to a build.
Try a bigger horizontal stab and bigger elevator. Plus, try and put your rear landing gear (with a tricycle gear airplane) closer to the CoM, so the airplane can "rotate" around the CoM and then takeoff. Good news to all this is that you'll learn a lot about what and how an airplane flies.
Yes, agree with all the points you make. But let me ramble and muse: I believe SP "physics" is a result of the Unity(?) engine, which is the platform on which SP operates...it really just emulates how a wing, based on wing area, angle of attack and speed, should react. It does not model the actual airflow, so it's impossible for two surfaces (such as an F-104 t-tail being "masked" by the wing at high AoA) to interact. It's almost as if the builds are flying in a vacuum, just reacting as they should be. It's a simplistic model and it lacks a bit...but, to put it on another platform would probably be really difficult, time-consuming and expensive (for the Devs). Plus, not sure you could carry it around on your iPhone...which is a huge part of SP's original vision. Anyhow, as for stalls, yeah, you can make the wing "stall" by flying slowly, but it's not really based on AoA. The nose of your airplane will "stutter" through the air if you demand too much and I've put aircraft out of control, if not in true spins, plenty of times. Sooo...not sure how much could be gained by the Devs by migrating to another engine.
@Dimkal, yes, most are about 15 years old. But it's a pretty cool platform as a hobby, less messy and easier to put away than building R/C models, which is what I would be doing if I had a bit more time in my life. For aircraft type, check out the avatar, it's a self-portrait.
@Gemista, as an experienced SP veteran, I would encourage you to build a B&V 40, that thing is a fairly simple build. I'm sure you can do it, go for it!
@vonhubert yes, totally agree. In fact, I'm trying to decide whether or not to add flaps to my current build (the one you helped me with), I'm not sure it's worth the effort even though the real-life counterpart had them, what do you think? Also, if what mean when you say "X-plane", you mean real life aircraft undergoing flight testing, If you are correct, experimental and prototype aircraft these days undergo extensive computer and wind tunnel testing, even after all the design calculations, gone are the bad old days when the pilot wasn't sure if the machine would actually fly or not and the spectacular accidents which sometimes resulted.
@Weaverfish interesting...if it should have automatically uploaded as a successor. Perhaps since you deleted the predecessor (prior to uploading this one?), it didn't post as a successor.
@Weaverfish yes, I did comment on your P-40, really think you did a great job on that one, the shape was perfect. Standby, I'm going to check out your new post.
@Weaverfish thanks for the input. I figured it out, the issue is that when in the editor, if you simply nudge the camera to the center of the intake piece, which seems the way it should be done, the view you see out of the camera is still above where the camera actually sits. You actually need to put the camera below, and well below, where you want the view to "see" from when in flying mode.
@vonhubert even flaps on straight wing aircraft (the U-2 has a very noticeable nose down pitch movement when extending the flaps) can cause pitch changes; considering the flap-slab interconnect systems on newer aircraft, yeah, the T-38 has that system (the U-2 does not, lots of manual trim change required), in fact failure of that system with flaps extended causes an abrupt pitch up which must be arrested with aggressive full forward stick "within 3 seconds" is what the Dash-1 states. I've noticed the pitch change, but not the lift increase...but that's interesting that you've noticed it. I will have to re-attempt a flapped build to see if I can reproduce the lift increase...up to this point, I had decided it just wasn't worth the effort. Now that you ALSO have me thinking about the whole pitch change thing, I'm going to have to build something with a flap-slab interconnect system...hmmm....
@Wolffman, take it from me, there are plenty of good things in life. What you're feeling is most likely boredom; if you think about it, boredom (or the lack of distraction) can feel like what you describe as nihilism...
A link to the build would help illustrate the problem you're having, but, generally, when the CoM is too far ahead of the CoL, that will cause the nose to fall and the aircraft to nosedive.
Nice, it takes off and flies...buuuuttt...the elevator control is reversed. Push forward, trees get smaller, pull back, trees get bigger, which is exactly the opposite of the old aviation axiom. I know that some RC aircraft guy's set up their planes that way, do you fly RC?
It was too small anyway (or at least the cranium was too small), so it looked, and still looks, ridiculous. However, it did add a little extra to open-cockpit aircraft. If they did bring it back, then I would recommend that it should be about 3.5 units long (or tall), which would correspond to someone who's about 5 1/2 to 6 feet tall.
@NativeChief1492 thanks!
@vonhubert yes, noted, some of what I had to do was guesswork as they never actually built a prototype aircraft. I figured there would have been some modifications between design and final product, so I had a bit of carte blanche!
@Dimkal thanks!
@F104Deathtrap yeah, the "flight manual" is pretty detailed, not sure if I mentioned trim specifically or not...I always use trim in my builds, one way or another, just more realistic, IMHO
@MAHADI glad you like it!
@Raiyan geez, absolutely not. I had no idea there would be this much baggage with a WWII Luftwaffe build.
@jamesPLANESii the GR.1 IS a Tornado! :)
Definitely some McD in its DNA...
Well, it really captures the Hornet's "stance"...great work on the gear, not overly complex, but just enough that it looks right. Nice rendition of a very common build, but better than 99% of the other ones out there.
Wow, quality work here!
@Sarpanitu ok, noted. Did not know exactly how to do that, now it's clear. Kind of like it was during WWII when aircraft were fielded still having problems--heck, the P-38s had compressibility issues and the tail would fall off at time to time all the way until the end of the war, things they were struggling to find solutions for in flight test until the end. If I post a "B" or "V2". version, I'll be sure to correct it.
@doge 60 (SIXTY) million died
@RogueFalcon376 no, sorry. WWII was a historical fact, not celebrating what the National Socialists did, just presenting an accurate representation of what happened. Best to NOT forget the Nazis and never repeat those crimes.
Cool! Nice work!
@Tigozawr, great! When you post it, tag me and I'll take a look.
@oDDDity yes, agree, dihedral causes the aircraft to be longitudinally unstable in SP, but it's not the same constant roll in one direction or the other. I guess people asking this question should be a little more specific in saying what their exact problem is.
@Tigozawr, if you have ruled out a 1. weight asymmetry, or 2. a form asymmetry (big object on one side, small or no object on the other side creating a difference in aerodynamic drag), it has to be the wing build issue. You need to check the clipping to attachment points like this: Place an object, where you want it, on one wing (check coordinates with Fine Tuner). MANUALLY place a copy of that object at the same point on the opposite wing--you should be able to manually clip it in almost exactly the opposite position. THEN, nudge or move both objects exactly to where you want them on the opposite wings--they should be symmetrical, though. If that doesn't fix it, then refer to 1. and 2. above. Oh, yeah, NEVER use mirroring!
Very cool! The past few days haven't been good for original, nice-looking builds, but yours breaks the drought. I can imagine, though, that Heinkel would have had a nightmare of a time trying to incorporate those props into the booms that way...I can see the Allied news headlines: "Nazi torpedo bomber's tail separates in flight...take that Adolf!"
Here's a more in depth explanation on why this happens...
My explanation may be long and involved, but here's why the roll is happening. You're not going to like the answer, which is to take everything off the wing and manually position everything so that the attach points are symmetrical. Often, people will read the explanation and say "But, you just have to make sure the weights are equal on both sides...!" No. There's an interaction with the wings and attach points in SP that makes it so that the same things need to be attached on both sides to the opposing attach points.
Another way to make an aircraft "long ranged" would be to lower fuel consumption...think the "Voyager", which flew around the world non-stop.
Well, your KH-240-2 is 141,000+ lbs, the A380 is over 1M lbs., so it's going to take considerably more fuel (if the difference is in fuel alone, the weight would be equivalent to 132,000 gallons). Plus your build is significantly smaller, 140+ ft wingspan may not seem that much smaller than 262 ft, think about the "cube rule".
In aircraft, changing the direction of thrust to enable vertical takeoffs or landings or to enable extreme maneuvering. Aircraft with thrust vectoring include the AV-8B Harrier and the F-22 Raptor, among others. In SP, there is a VTOL engine and separate nozzles you can use together to impart thrust vectoring to a build.
There are some nice ideas here, it's an older build, but deserves an upvote, so here you go!
Try a bigger horizontal stab and bigger elevator. Plus, try and put your rear landing gear (with a tricycle gear airplane) closer to the CoM, so the airplane can "rotate" around the CoM and then takeoff. Good news to all this is that you'll learn a lot about what and how an airplane flies.
Yes, agree with all the points you make. But let me ramble and muse: I believe SP "physics" is a result of the Unity(?) engine, which is the platform on which SP operates...it really just emulates how a wing, based on wing area, angle of attack and speed, should react. It does not model the actual airflow, so it's impossible for two surfaces (such as an F-104 t-tail being "masked" by the wing at high AoA) to interact. It's almost as if the builds are flying in a vacuum, just reacting as they should be. It's a simplistic model and it lacks a bit...but, to put it on another platform would probably be really difficult, time-consuming and expensive (for the Devs). Plus, not sure you could carry it around on your iPhone...which is a huge part of SP's original vision. Anyhow, as for stalls, yeah, you can make the wing "stall" by flying slowly, but it's not really based on AoA. The nose of your airplane will "stutter" through the air if you demand too much and I've put aircraft out of control, if not in true spins, plenty of times. Sooo...not sure how much could be gained by the Devs by migrating to another engine.
@Dimkal, yes, most are about 15 years old. But it's a pretty cool platform as a hobby, less messy and easier to put away than building R/C models, which is what I would be doing if I had a bit more time in my life. For aircraft type, check out the avatar, it's a self-portrait.
Nice build, how much did you mod these weapons from the originals? If anything, it's one heck of a compilation job.
Yes, in fact it was subject of the book, "Vulcan 655", I think it was titled? Have you read it?
@Weaverfish yes, read here
@Weaverfish watch language, read the rules, you're going to get your posts deleted and banned from the site!
@Gemista, as an experienced SP veteran, I would encourage you to build a B&V 40, that thing is a fairly simple build. I'm sure you can do it, go for it!
@vonhubert yes, totally agree. In fact, I'm trying to decide whether or not to add flaps to my current build (the one you helped me with), I'm not sure it's worth the effort even though the real-life counterpart had them, what do you think? Also, if what mean when you say "X-plane", you mean real life aircraft undergoing flight testing, If you are correct, experimental and prototype aircraft these days undergo extensive computer and wind tunnel testing, even after all the design calculations, gone are the bad old days when the pilot wasn't sure if the machine would actually fly or not and the spectacular accidents which sometimes resulted.
@Weaverfish interesting...if it should have automatically uploaded as a successor. Perhaps since you deleted the predecessor (prior to uploading this one?), it didn't post as a successor.
What exactly did you change from the previous version?
@Weaverfish yes, I did comment on your P-40, really think you did a great job on that one, the shape was perfect. Standby, I'm going to check out your new post.
@Weaverfish thanks for the input. I figured it out, the issue is that when in the editor, if you simply nudge the camera to the center of the intake piece, which seems the way it should be done, the view you see out of the camera is still above where the camera actually sits. You actually need to put the camera below, and well below, where you want the view to "see" from when in flying mode.
@vonhubert even flaps on straight wing aircraft (the U-2 has a very noticeable nose down pitch movement when extending the flaps) can cause pitch changes; considering the flap-slab interconnect systems on newer aircraft, yeah, the T-38 has that system (the U-2 does not, lots of manual trim change required), in fact failure of that system with flaps extended causes an abrupt pitch up which must be arrested with aggressive full forward stick "within 3 seconds" is what the Dash-1 states. I've noticed the pitch change, but not the lift increase...but that's interesting that you've noticed it. I will have to re-attempt a flapped build to see if I can reproduce the lift increase...up to this point, I had decided it just wasn't worth the effort. Now that you ALSO have me thinking about the whole pitch change thing, I'm going to have to build something with a flap-slab interconnect system...hmmm....
@TakicraftCorporation love that movie!
Very nice and very similar to one of my builds, I like it!
@Wolffman, take it from me, there are plenty of good things in life. What you're feeling is most likely boredom; if you think about it, boredom (or the lack of distraction) can feel like what you describe as nihilism...
A link to the build would help illustrate the problem you're having, but, generally, when the CoM is too far ahead of the CoL, that will cause the nose to fall and the aircraft to nosedive.
+1NNNiiiiiicccccceeeee!!!!!!!
Nice, it takes off and flies...buuuuttt...the elevator control is reversed. Push forward, trees get smaller, pull back, trees get bigger, which is exactly the opposite of the old aviation axiom. I know that some RC aircraft guy's set up their planes that way, do you fly RC?
Nice! Now following...
Hey, read the community standards, no swearing.
Perhaps Tempest after, then. Good luck, would recommend making the F-82's canopies smaller and less bulbous. Looks like a good start, though!
2...don't see many early Tempests around here. Good luck with the camouflage.
It was too small anyway (or at least the cranium was too small), so it looked, and still looks, ridiculous. However, it did add a little extra to open-cockpit aircraft. If they did bring it back, then I would recommend that it should be about 3.5 units long (or tall), which would correspond to someone who's about 5 1/2 to 6 feet tall.
Nice! Even better than the screenshots!