I will second @Supercraft888's comment...you have a distinct, whimsical style, almost as if your creations are popping off the page of a comic book. Many appreciate this style (including myself), while others prefer more realism. So, if you want to change your style a bit to be more "realistic", try this: Google "Mig 29 3-view", reference the image using a ruler to get your proportions correct and I think that will evolve your building style in that direction. Also, will second @Verterium and encourage more detail. While simple builds are great for iOS users, most upvote based on the screenshot, so add a few more details, such as ducts, markings, beacon lights, etc. Hope you find these suggestions helpful.
Sorry, I was following your description until this part: "...then took the cockpit off and rotated the fuselage and kept mirroring and moving and rotating until it was done" How did you jam the last two 1.75 x 5 fuses into the remaining space? If you color the 4x fuse pieces different colors, then repost the screen shot, I'll probably be able to figure it out...:)
@Luuk2909 sorry, it's VX-4 "Evaluators". Try this one, it's a really dark grey, the second F-14A on the page, I've seen dark grey looks better than black on the screenshots.
Well, I guess you answered your own question there, but VF-143 would be a good project. I think the red warning symbols on the intake ramps would contrast nicely with the blue tail markings.
As Delphinus has already answered your questions, I guess these are really just "thoughts on your questions". Except for #1, which I know is correct:
One. Yes. For reference: nearly all modern fighters have "tailerons" and fully moving stabs.
One a (or two). Probably. Flaps are extended when the jet is flying at slow speeds, so I would expect the ailerons would work to provide additional roll control.
Three. Good question...but as the wings can be swung by the pilot, I'm sure it's not always automatically done. There are restrictions on wing sweep having to do with speed (i.e., don't fly too fast with the wings forward or too slow with them back), but the sweep is not solely dictated automatically based on speed. I wouldn't worry too much about it, as long as the "pilot" has the option to select wing sweep.
Four. Tough question. Too many to choose from. One favorite is VF-84 "Jolly Rogers". Google images.
What is the rest of this babble? The F-14 does NOT fly 5000 mph, Mach 2.5 is 1918 mph, which is about as fast as the F-14 (or any other current airplane) can go.
The problem is that the using SP resizeable fuselage piece to form a single circular corner is that the builder can only curve one half of the part. So, if you have to use multiple fuselage pieces to "build up" the fuse (as when building a 1:1 replica of a large aircraft), you can never get a completely round fuse cross-section. UNLESS you XML mod or use Fine Tuner to resize the part. For reference: 2 units = 1 meter = 3.3 feet. The max size possible without modding is 5 units, or 2.5 meters or 8 1/4 ft. There is one drawback with resizing. While Fine Tuner does a good job adjusting the weight of the part, the fuel capacity remains the same. If I had one suggestion for the resizable fuse (and resizable intake), it would be this: Make an option to fully extend the curve all the way to the edges, not just to the midpoint of the part.
@SSGTWolf hey, I'm not trying to insult your intelligence here, I'll bet 99% of the people on this site have no idea what the difference is between a P-40 and a P-400, much less that a "P-400" even exists. As your description made absolutely no mention of the distinction, I thought it would be a fun fact to point out. Never mind.
Interesting. You know the old joke told during WWII? "What's a P-400? A P-40 with a Zero on its tail!" It was actually an export version of the P-40 and had a 20 mm cannon in place of the spinner-mounted 37 mm cannon.
What are you building? Also, an unlisted link to the build in question might also help someone to help you to fix the issue. Or, you could tag someone who might be able to help.
@LockheedMartinAerospace, nah, EMP hardening is not a 6 Gen trait. It's been around since the advent of the B-52, a nuclear bomber. The anti missile lasers haven't been fielded yet, though I will admit, that might be a feature in what eventually will be eventually considered 6 Gen aircraft. Plus, did you read the description and pick up on the collaborative networking/swarm attack capability (admittedly simulated here)? I assure you that link-enabled collaboration between formation elements is something that will happen in a 6th Generation, probably before weaponized lasers are fielded. Besides, all the guesswork on 6 Gen capes is just that--guesswork. If you disagree, I'll be curious to see what you come up with anyway!
So, the question I have with this suggestion is this: How many of these suggested changes could be accommodated by mobile devices? Should SP veer off into PC-only and mobile-only versions? I perceive the Devs want to keep the program common between mobile-friendly and PC-friendly.
Well, of all the stupid things I'm wondering...: What really has me curious is where did you get the P-38 in your screenshot? It looks like @Sunnyskies, but it's different from his creations. I know, I know, I should really be critiquing the mod, but the screenshot has me intrigued.
A CoM far ahead the CoL makes a plane more stable (longer moment arm), so shorten the distance between the two for better maneuverbility. But don't make it too short or the plane may be unstable and depart controlled flight, especially if the AI is in control (grrrr...! 😡)
Larger wings + lighter weight = lower wing loading and better maneuverability. You can easily check this under the "I" icon in the build menu under "wing loading". Under 50 lbs/sq ft is decent maneuverability, but under 25 is much, much better!
Larger control surfaces, specifically the elevator. Too large, though, and you'll see the nose bounce around a turn...this is SP's simulation of a high speed stall. Either don't pull back so hard or make the elevator smaller (flying faster also helps).
Find your "corner velocity". Most of my builds have their best rate of turn around 600 mph. If you fly too slow, the plane tends to stall or departs controlled flight into a spin (see above), too fast and you're just opening your turn radius.
Something else hardly ever mentioned here: High power to weight ratio. Once you find your best "corner velocity", you want to keep your jet there. The tendency of an aircraft wing is to produce more drag with the more lift it's producing. Thrust overcomes drag. That's why an F-16 can sustain 9 Gs in a turn, great power to weight ratio. A P-51 Mustang can also produce 9 Gs, but cannot sustain them because it doesn't have the same power. More power and a plane can power around a turn more easily.
More followers = Upvotes. The reason is that your followers see your builds in their Jetstreams, otherwise if you post at the wrong time all too easy to miss a good post...
@RedstoneAeroAviation yes, the Orion Nebula, designated as M42 in the Messier catalog, should be visible if you can see Betelgeuse. In fact, if you have a relatively dark sky you should be able to see with the naked eye.
@RedstoneAeroAviation I would have to know where in the sky you saw the orange object to determine if that was Mars or not. Planets don't flicker (or twinkle) the way stars do, so if it was flickering, it was probably a star. There are several bright red/orange stars in the sky this time of year, including Betelgeuse, which is at the "head" of Orion.
I'm always amazed you build these things on iOS. I started out on iOS, but when I downloaded SP on my PC, I really quit doing anything on my phone (plus, it's just a 5, so anything over 200 parts starts to create lag...)
@KDS no, they don't. But it really helps to have several guns (I have a very simple for-fun build which I use for just playing around which has 6 guns concentrated in the nose) firing in a tight pattern.
@TemDesBur @Tully2001 agreed, elements of both aircraft in this build, I'm glad the community knows its aircraft...do I see a little A-36/P-51 as well in the nose shape?!?...this guy posts a unique and decent build and we all incessantly critique it with our intimate knowledge of WWII fighters..! @JEAMiner deserves a Spotlight simply for putting up with our non-stop back and forth, here you go!
Oh, and both the Fine Tuner and Overload mods help immensely...
I will second @Supercraft888's comment...you have a distinct, whimsical style, almost as if your creations are popping off the page of a comic book. Many appreciate this style (including myself), while others prefer more realism. So, if you want to change your style a bit to be more "realistic", try this: Google "Mig 29 3-view", reference the image using a ruler to get your proportions correct and I think that will evolve your building style in that direction. Also, will second @Verterium and encourage more detail. While simple builds are great for iOS users, most upvote based on the screenshot, so add a few more details, such as ducts, markings, beacon lights, etc. Hope you find these suggestions helpful.
Sorry, I was following your description until this part: "...then took the cockpit off and rotated the fuselage and kept mirroring and moving and rotating until it was done" How did you jam the last two 1.75 x 5 fuses into the remaining space? If you color the 4x fuse pieces different colors, then repost the screen shot, I'll probably be able to figure it out...:)
How did you place the four 1.75x5 fuses and how do they make such smooth seams?
@Luuk2909 sorry, it's VX-4 "Evaluators". Try this one, it's a really dark grey, the second F-14A on the page, I've seen dark grey looks better than black on the screenshots.
Or VX-1, which are overall black with the Playboy Bunny symbol on the tail. THAT would be different.
Well, I guess you answered your own question there, but VF-143 would be a good project. I think the red warning symbols on the intake ramps would contrast nicely with the blue tail markings.
As Delphinus has already answered your questions, I guess these are really just "thoughts on your questions". Except for #1, which I know is correct:
One. Yes. For reference: nearly all modern fighters have "tailerons" and fully moving stabs.
One a (or two). Probably. Flaps are extended when the jet is flying at slow speeds, so I would expect the ailerons would work to provide additional roll control.
Three. Good question...but as the wings can be swung by the pilot, I'm sure it's not always automatically done. There are restrictions on wing sweep having to do with speed (i.e., don't fly too fast with the wings forward or too slow with them back), but the sweep is not solely dictated automatically based on speed. I wouldn't worry too much about it, as long as the "pilot" has the option to select wing sweep.
Four. Tough question. Too many to choose from. One favorite is VF-84 "Jolly Rogers". Google images.
What is the rest of this babble? The F-14 does NOT fly 5000 mph, Mach 2.5 is 1918 mph, which is about as fast as the F-14 (or any other current airplane) can go.
The problem is that the using SP resizeable fuselage piece to form a single circular corner is that the builder can only curve one half of the part. So, if you have to use multiple fuselage pieces to "build up" the fuse (as when building a 1:1 replica of a large aircraft), you can never get a completely round fuse cross-section. UNLESS you XML mod or use Fine Tuner to resize the part. For reference: 2 units = 1 meter = 3.3 feet. The max size possible without modding is 5 units, or 2.5 meters or 8 1/4 ft. There is one drawback with resizing. While Fine Tuner does a good job adjusting the weight of the part, the fuel capacity remains the same. If I had one suggestion for the resizable fuse (and resizable intake), it would be this: Make an option to fully extend the curve all the way to the edges, not just to the midpoint of the part.
Some pretty nice tweaks here.
@SSGTWolf hey, I'm not trying to insult your intelligence here, I'll bet 99% of the people on this site have no idea what the difference is between a P-40 and a P-400, much less that a "P-400" even exists. As your description made absolutely no mention of the distinction, I thought it would be a fun fact to point out. Never mind.
@BogdanX @NativeChief1492...? Why didn't this post as a successor?
Interesting. You know the old joke told during WWII? "What's a P-400? A P-40 with a Zero on its tail!" It was actually an export version of the P-40 and had a 20 mm cannon in place of the spinner-mounted 37 mm cannon.
Though this doesn't compare to the real thing, your ingenuity in applying Python to the Mona Lisa deserves an upvote, so here you go.
I'm glad you found this, but....why wouldn't I just go to the Jundroo profile and download this? They have all the Jundroo creations there...
Wow! Best Zero I've seen here!
What are you building? Also, an unlisted link to the build in question might also help someone to help you to fix the issue. Or, you could tag someone who might be able to help.
@LockheedMartinAerospace, nah, EMP hardening is not a 6 Gen trait. It's been around since the advent of the B-52, a nuclear bomber. The anti missile lasers haven't been fielded yet, though I will admit, that might be a feature in what eventually will be eventually considered 6 Gen aircraft. Plus, did you read the description and pick up on the collaborative networking/swarm attack capability (admittedly simulated here)? I assure you that link-enabled collaboration between formation elements is something that will happen in a 6th Generation, probably before weaponized lasers are fielded. Besides, all the guesswork on 6 Gen capes is just that--guesswork. If you disagree, I'll be curious to see what you come up with anyway!
@joeysellers NO, NO. THAT'S NOT TRUE. THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!
Here you go: Lockheed F-37A Super Viper+
One of the greatest jet engines of all time.
Beautiful, very slick, especially nice job on the nose and flight deck/cockpit.
Art.
@SkullsAndCrossbones @Fishbowl1121 @ThatOnion, yes, gents, I know the Mod, but it should be inherent in the game, esp. for iOS users.
Excellent. I'm in.
@MechWARRIOR57 agreed!
It may be too small, but it captures the C-5's shape very closely.
I like the attention to detail, including making sure the compressor faces are visible through the intakes.
So, the question I have with this suggestion is this: How many of these suggested changes could be accommodated by mobile devices? Should SP veer off into PC-only and mobile-only versions? I perceive the Devs want to keep the program common between mobile-friendly and PC-friendly.
Very nice build, you capture the Tucano's shape very accurately.
Fully awesome.
Well, of all the stupid things I'm wondering...: What really has me curious is where did you get the P-38 in your screenshot? It looks like @Sunnyskies, but it's different from his creations. I know, I know, I should really be critiquing the mod, but the screenshot has me intrigued.
Looks good.
787
@Storm41 thanks, I'm glad you like it.
I'll add to @Delphinus's comments:
A CoM far ahead the CoL makes a plane more stable (longer moment arm), so shorten the distance between the two for better maneuverbility. But don't make it too short or the plane may be unstable and depart controlled flight, especially if the AI is in control (grrrr...! 😡)
Larger wings + lighter weight = lower wing loading and better maneuverability. You can easily check this under the "I" icon in the build menu under "wing loading". Under 50 lbs/sq ft is decent maneuverability, but under 25 is much, much better!
Larger control surfaces, specifically the elevator. Too large, though, and you'll see the nose bounce around a turn...this is SP's simulation of a high speed stall. Either don't pull back so hard or make the elevator smaller (flying faster also helps).
Find your "corner velocity". Most of my builds have their best rate of turn around 600 mph. If you fly too slow, the plane tends to stall or departs controlled flight into a spin (see above), too fast and you're just opening your turn radius.
Something else hardly ever mentioned here: High power to weight ratio. Once you find your best "corner velocity", you want to keep your jet there. The tendency of an aircraft wing is to produce more drag with the more lift it's producing. Thrust overcomes drag. That's why an F-16 can sustain 9 Gs in a turn, great power to weight ratio. A P-51 Mustang can also produce 9 Gs, but cannot sustain them because it doesn't have the same power. More power and a plane can power around a turn more easily.
Hope this helps.
+5More followers = Upvotes. The reason is that your followers see your builds in their Jetstreams, otherwise if you post at the wrong time all too easy to miss a good post...
Nice 109, looking forward to finished product!
@airsoft download the Overload Mod here and you can easily change collisions to "False"
@RedstoneAeroAviation yes, the Orion Nebula, designated as M42 in the Messier catalog, should be visible if you can see Betelgeuse. In fact, if you have a relatively dark sky you should be able to see with the naked eye.
@RedstoneAeroAviation I would have to know where in the sky you saw the orange object to determine if that was Mars or not. Planets don't flicker (or twinkle) the way stars do, so if it was flickering, it was probably a star. There are several bright red/orange stars in the sky this time of year, including Betelgeuse, which is at the "head" of Orion.
@Storm41 thanks!
@EternalDarkness well, that's just insane.
I'm always amazed you build these things on iOS. I started out on iOS, but when I downloaded SP on my PC, I really quit doing anything on my phone (plus, it's just a 5, so anything over 200 parts starts to create lag...)
@KDS welllll.....I didn't say it was easy...:)
@KDS no, they don't. But it really helps to have several guns (I have a very simple for-fun build which I use for just playing around which has 6 guns concentrated in the nose) firing in a tight pattern.
@JEAMiner agreed, it IS a good build. Sorry about the nit-picking, it's just an interesting subject.
Welcome...you're already posting like a madman, four uploads since yesterday??? Impressive. Very impressive.
Nice, really looks like an A-6! Plus, some nice detail work, especially with the built-up wings.
@TemDesBur @Tully2001 agreed, elements of both aircraft in this build, I'm glad the community knows its aircraft...do I see a little A-36/P-51 as well in the nose shape?!?...this guy posts a unique and decent build and we all incessantly critique it with our intimate knowledge of WWII fighters..! @JEAMiner deserves a Spotlight simply for putting up with our non-stop back and forth, here you go!