Every time I see one of these pleas, I encourage the poster to attempt the build him or herself. I've sure Simpleflow or Frogmasteraeronautics could build a brilliant plane, but you'll only get better if you build it yourself!
I've done it, here. Collaborative build with @Kevinairlines, but I helped with the tail control surfaces. The two functions are trim and pitch, but same idea. You have to put rotators on rotators on wing or tail surfaces. You don't even need to XML, but Fine Tuner helps a lot with shrinking the rotators down so that they don't stick out the other side of the fuselage.
Not bad, how does she fly? You know you can use the resizeable intakes to replace the two per side stock intakes, it's much easier and you have the opportunity to really shape the intakes into what you need them to be.
@ESIOTROT121, A-4s? Do you mean A-4 Skyhawks? I think on of the only organizations operating A-4s today is possibly Draken International, a for-hire air adversary company which works with various air forces around the world. They fly the ex-RNZAF and RAAF A-4s.
Feedback: Very nice, especially from a newer builder. But why not just call it a Panavia Tornado, it's very close to being a replica, just a few minor differences which you could easily change? Also, zoom in more on your screenshot and post more than one. People on the site upvote based on the post, not so much on the aircraft itself, dad to say.
Very nice work, do not put too much stock in the criticisms below, this is an excellent effort. Also, I appreciate that you took the time to post a description, even if you used Google translate, it is much better to have a description than not.
@LockheedMartinAerospace I get the top speed requirement, but don't you think the F-35 drivers need to consider the Flanker (which is much faster) when executing their sorties?
The thing that instantly dissuaded me from taking part was this requirement: 1) Top speed of greater than 1560 mph, but less than 2276 mph. That's an awfully specific speed requirement, not sure why you would shackle a design to this requirement...
You cannot; Apple doesn't allow anyone to access the XML files to make the modifications. I don't know how familiar you are with XML editing (I was not until I fooled around with it in SP), but you open the XML aircraft files, which are in a sub-folder under "Jundroo", edit the values in the file and save the edited files. As t8erh8er states below, there's no way to get into those files in iOS. It's Apple's policy for all their software and Jundroo can't do anything about it.
@Thomasj041 no, not at all. SP does not allow lower ranked players to Spotlight higher ranked players. Check it out next time you're looking at a build by a higher ranked player.
A second way you can counteract the roll is to add a few degrees of pitch on one elevator, which will cause an opposite roll moment to counteract the problem roll (this is known as "trimming" in real life--actual aircraft go through a "trimming" procedure post-maintenance being performed on flight control surfaces). I did this on my A-4K when I had induced a roll through my lack of understanding of the SP attach-nudge-mirror problem. The only problem with this is that the build is then trimmed up for a certain airspeed and altitude (low altitude and approx 480 mph for My A-4K--I figured the average SP player flies at full throttle and low altitude, so most players would not notice) but changes in those parameters will reintroduce a roll due to changing aerodynamic forces.
@LockheedMartinAerospace, you are correct: All of the factors you describe will induce a roll. However, SP also has the simulation issue I describe below, which does not exist in "real life". The "real life" factors you describe are usually much more evident, causing a much more violent roll than the slow, annoying roll problem many builders suffer.
There are a variety of answers below, but @BogdanX is correct: The roll is caused by attaching a fuselage block to one wing, NUDGING the block into the desired position, then mirroring the block to the opposite wing. My theory is that, when nudging, then mirroring, the mirrored block will attach to a different attachment point, the closest point, which is different from the original side. That throws off the balance and induces the roll. My technique for avoiding this is to attach the block to one side, then mirror without nudging first. Once created, THEN nudge both blocks into position. Be sure to check (with Fine Tuner) the final position of the blocks to ensure they are exactly symmetrical. You can also manually place blocks on both sides without resorting to mirroring, though it is tedious to ensure both sides are placed in exactly the opposite positions using the same attach points, it's not too terribly difficult.
Is it even possible to synchronize guns with the prop? I always thought the only way to fire through the prop arc was to put the guns right up close to it...
I like your builds...how about expanding beyond WWII aircraft into the '50s or '60s? I always find there are many interesting subjects during that time period.
The trig works, but did you reverse the two courses? KMYW lies approximately southeast from KSNT, so to go TO KSNT, you would have to fly NNW (335 degrees) and reverse to return (155 degrees) ;)
No, I do not think the AF (not the government) made a mistake with the F-22. Don't forget the F-22A is a significantly different fighter than the YF-22 prototype. If you haven't see this, compare the outlines of the two aircraft, here. Who knows just how different the internals are? Second, there are plenty of classified information the public isn't aware of which goes into these types of decisions; that, more than public information on speed and maneuverability, probably informed the decision on which aircraft to select. Lastly, I don't think the AF would have made a mistake with either aircraft, the F-23 would probably have evolved into a fantastic fighter, but we KNOW the F-22 has evolved into a fighter which can fly with near-impunity against today's adversaries. But it's all academic, as we'll never get to compare the definitive version of the F-22 with what would have been the definitive version of the F-23, which is how a better comparison might be made.
So...what's with the AG1/VTOL dance? Seems like you had to work a relatively complex work-around, it'll take awhile to learn the steps after I download this later, not impossible, just some work. Also, does one have to reverse the steps to land on water? Looks really realistic, though.
Gorgeous build. Very precise and detailed. Makes sense, though, that you couldn't find a paint scheme as this one never actually flew. We (the U.S.) captured a few uncompleted prototypes at the end of the war.
Nice build. May I offer?: You can simply attach the horizontal stab to one boom, then extend it so that it attaches on the other end to the second boom, check it out here...
@t8erh8er wow! Good one!
@Kevinairlines my goodness, you're persistent. No, not yet. Will have time this weekend, as it's a weekend and I'm not working :)
Every time I see one of these pleas, I encourage the poster to attempt the build him or herself. I've sure Simpleflow or Frogmasteraeronautics could build a brilliant plane, but you'll only get better if you build it yourself!
I've done it, here. Collaborative build with @Kevinairlines, but I helped with the tail control surfaces. The two functions are trim and pitch, but same idea. You have to put rotators on rotators on wing or tail surfaces. You don't even need to XML, but Fine Tuner helps a lot with shrinking the rotators down so that they don't stick out the other side of the fuselage.
And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? It can never happen, so there's not an answer to the question.
This one is eerily similar to my F-37A Super Viper, I like it!
Wow, this is eerily similar to my F-37A, I like it!
Bright yellow and orange, a bold choice for a Flogger!
Huh, well good choice then!
Yes @Joco80 you are correct, this is a stolen repost of the Jundroo bomber. Flagged, @TheLatentImage.
Not bad, how does she fly? You know you can use the resizeable intakes to replace the two per side stock intakes, it's much easier and you have the opportunity to really shape the intakes into what you need them to be.
@ESIOTROT121, A-4s? Do you mean A-4 Skyhawks? I think on of the only organizations operating A-4s today is possibly Draken International, a for-hire air adversary company which works with various air forces around the world. They fly the ex-RNZAF and RAAF A-4s.
Very cool.
Feedback: Very nice, especially from a newer builder. But why not just call it a Panavia Tornado, it's very close to being a replica, just a few minor differences which you could easily change? Also, zoom in more on your screenshot and post more than one. People on the site upvote based on the post, not so much on the aircraft itself, dad to say.
Very nice work, do not put too much stock in the criticisms below, this is an excellent effort. Also, I appreciate that you took the time to post a description, even if you used Google translate, it is much better to have a description than not.
@LockheedMartinAerospace I get the top speed requirement, but don't you think the F-35 drivers need to consider the Flanker (which is much faster) when executing their sorties?
@Testin123, I have a PC.
The thing that instantly dissuaded me from taking part was this requirement: 1) Top speed of greater than 1560 mph, but less than 2276 mph. That's an awfully specific speed requirement, not sure why you would shackle a design to this requirement...
You cannot; Apple doesn't allow anyone to access the XML files to make the modifications. I don't know how familiar you are with XML editing (I was not until I fooled around with it in SP), but you open the XML aircraft files, which are in a sub-folder under "Jundroo", edit the values in the file and save the edited files. As t8erh8er states below, there's no way to get into those files in iOS. It's Apple's policy for all their software and Jundroo can't do anything about it.
Reminds me of a Potez 75, but with retractable landing gear and probably a much better performer.
The top...but the bottom scheme will stand out more when you post it.
@Dumpworks yup, sure was. Probably could make it work today with computer control.
@Thomasj041 no, not at all. SP does not allow lower ranked players to Spotlight higher ranked players. Check it out next time you're looking at a build by a higher ranked player.
Well, no wonder the Soviets cancelled it, let me take one guess on what question they couldn't answer: "How do you land it?!?"
Sure, but you have more points than I do now, so I can't Spotlight higher-ranked builders!
Beautiful, especially the flight deck and cockpit--very difficult to do in SP--nice!
Interesting build, will have to pull it apart to see why the heading indicator is thrown off; but it's fun to pilot this Kamikaze of a missile!
So I came back to Spotlight this one (was told I was in Cooldown), but when I came back to do so, I was too late! Congrats!
Wish I could Spotlight this one, but I'm unworthy!
What's a "Boing"?
A second way you can counteract the roll is to add a few degrees of pitch on one elevator, which will cause an opposite roll moment to counteract the problem roll (this is known as "trimming" in real life--actual aircraft go through a "trimming" procedure post-maintenance being performed on flight control surfaces). I did this on my A-4K when I had induced a roll through my lack of understanding of the SP attach-nudge-mirror problem. The only problem with this is that the build is then trimmed up for a certain airspeed and altitude (low altitude and approx 480 mph for My A-4K--I figured the average SP player flies at full throttle and low altitude, so most players would not notice) but changes in those parameters will reintroduce a roll due to changing aerodynamic forces.
@LockheedMartinAerospace, you are correct: All of the factors you describe will induce a roll. However, SP also has the simulation issue I describe below, which does not exist in "real life". The "real life" factors you describe are usually much more evident, causing a much more violent roll than the slow, annoying roll problem many builders suffer.
There are a variety of answers below, but @BogdanX is correct: The roll is caused by attaching a fuselage block to one wing, NUDGING the block into the desired position, then mirroring the block to the opposite wing. My theory is that, when nudging, then mirroring, the mirrored block will attach to a different attachment point, the closest point, which is different from the original side. That throws off the balance and induces the roll. My technique for avoiding this is to attach the block to one side, then mirror without nudging first. Once created, THEN nudge both blocks into position. Be sure to check (with Fine Tuner) the final position of the blocks to ensure they are exactly symmetrical. You can also manually place blocks on both sides without resorting to mirroring, though it is tedious to ensure both sides are placed in exactly the opposite positions using the same attach points, it's not too terribly difficult.
Nice build.
Very attractive.
@Othawne really, did not realize you could do that, any further details or suggestions?
Wish I could Spotlight this creation, but I am unworthy to do so...
Is it even possible to synchronize guns with the prop? I always thought the only way to fire through the prop arc was to put the guns right up close to it...
I like your builds...how about expanding beyond WWII aircraft into the '50s or '60s? I always find there are many interesting subjects during that time period.
F-23 replica.
The trig works, but did you reverse the two courses? KMYW lies approximately southeast from KSNT, so to go TO KSNT, you would have to fly NNW (335 degrees) and reverse to return (155 degrees) ;)
@LordHKelvin very nice, KSNT and KMYW, navigation by dead reckoning, I like it!
Nice!
Ahhhaaa! The rudders! I get it now.
No, I do not think the AF (not the government) made a mistake with the F-22. Don't forget the F-22A is a significantly different fighter than the YF-22 prototype. If you haven't see this, compare the outlines of the two aircraft, here. Who knows just how different the internals are? Second, there are plenty of classified information the public isn't aware of which goes into these types of decisions; that, more than public information on speed and maneuverability, probably informed the decision on which aircraft to select. Lastly, I don't think the AF would have made a mistake with either aircraft, the F-23 would probably have evolved into a fantastic fighter, but we KNOW the F-22 has evolved into a fighter which can fly with near-impunity against today's adversaries. But it's all academic, as we'll never get to compare the definitive version of the F-22 with what would have been the definitive version of the F-23, which is how a better comparison might be made.
+1So...what's with the AG1/VTOL dance? Seems like you had to work a relatively complex work-around, it'll take awhile to learn the steps after I download this later, not impossible, just some work. Also, does one have to reverse the steps to land on water? Looks really realistic, though.
I really like the description, plus the fact you actually took the time (66+ mins) to fly the route.
@MrSilverWolf, huh! Though I take anything in Wikipedia with a grain of salt, looks like it DID actually fly several test flights!
Gorgeous build. Very precise and detailed. Makes sense, though, that you couldn't find a paint scheme as this one never actually flew. We (the U.S.) captured a few uncompleted prototypes at the end of the war.
Nice build. May I offer?: You can simply attach the horizontal stab to one boom, then extend it so that it attaches on the other end to the second boom, check it out here...