Landing gear would be a nightmare to replicate, but if you don't do that, you might as well call your build an F6F Hellcat. Retract version of the Catalina has the same setup, I've seen a couple of builds that do a good job replicating it, but only a couple.
@lucas1998, La Pucara es un avion muy interesante, y puedo hacerlo en el future cercano. Puedo hablar con dificultad (me uso el traductor de Google con frequncia), pero puedo leer espanol mucho mas facilmente.
I would shorten the "bar" on the USAF insignia by about 30% (make it 70% of the current length). Also, when you use them, take note that USAF airplanes only wear the insignia on one wing per side, the left one, looking down or up. Counterbalance any yawing by placing one on top side and one on bottom. They'll be on opposite wings and should counter each other, like this: Waco Combat Glider. Point of star faces forward. Some airplanes, though, like the F-22 and F-15, wear them slightly slanted refer to a good pic when deciding how to place them. Many USAF airplanes have a "USAF" on the opposite (right) wing, which is another way of countering any yawing tendency. Also, many different coloring over the years, from colored to subdued, red white and blue to grey and even greens!
RAF insignia goes on both wings, top and bottom. Many more modern types have subdued red and blues, with no white present.
Nice build. The original RB-57 preceded the U-2, so it's technically a "predecessor" to the U-2. This version, the "F", is a later variant, NASA still flies it today, very cool!
Yes, the GAR-1&2 missiles actually retracted into those pods, the original armament were unguided air to air rockets! I think it was an F-89 trying to shoot down an out of control Navy F6F target drone that set the Los Angeles forest on fire in the 1960s. Didn't manage to shoot down the F6F despite expending all of its rockets. The missiles came later...much more effective 😎
Nice airplane, more of an MD-11 as it seems to be a bit longer than a DC-10...however: The screenshot does NOT does not display this build as it should. Next time, recommend you "zoom in" more so the plane fills the entire screen...
Wow, very nice! I always have really liked the F-89...not sure why, maybe it's the clashing difference between it's straight wing, not very fast look and it's interceptor mission, determined despite the odds...the missiles are a great touch, as well.
Nice, unique subject. Makes me want to try my hand at one of the WWI pushers. There are "engines" out there, builds by other users, of radial engines (even though this one is a rotary engine aircraft) which would go great on a build such as this one...
Simply beautiful is more like it, this is one of my favorite 1930s racers. I probably would have stuck with the "warbird" style prop for this one, as I think it more closely matches the original (though everything about building replicas is an approximation)...nice job!
Nice work, especially the weapons bay. But have to ask: How come the missiles don't just hit and blow up the airplane when they're launched out of the weapons bay?
Oh my...let me get this right...you polled us this afternoon what build should you make, the consensus was Me-109 and, voila, 3 hours later, you're done?!?
@jamesPLANESii agreed; however, I was flying around on full power on the "good" engine. The key to this is to maintain your airspeed, just as it is in real life. You generally would expect that Vmc would be slower than your approach speed, so that if you did have an engine failure, the aircraft wouldn't spiral out of control until you reduce power on the good engine. But, as I said below, it's really difficult to compare your build against an actual C-46, so I cannot say, for certain, the degree of control is similar to real life or not. I just know that, generally, in SP, the yaw encountered in a single-engine situation acts as it does in real life (pulls the aircraft away from the side of the good engine). Also, the yaw can be counteracted by full rudder and bank into the good engine and, also, getting slow in a single-engine situation is BAD. Real life multi-engine pilots practice single-engine situations all the time because they're difficult emergency scenarios. I don't really think there's a "bug" here, more of a degree of how much yaw is introduced. Or, it could be, how much effect the airflow has (or doesn't have) on the airplane and control surfaces. The physics model is an approximation, not exact and there are many things not quite right in the simulation (flaps, supersonic effects), but I (and you) find it close enough to be engaging. Otherwise, you wouldn't be practicing single-engine failures on final approach! ;)
Do the Vantour, I've never seen one on the site. I've seen plenty of Me-109s, as well as at least one of the flying boat (BV 222, I believe). I will admit, though, I've seen a lot more good 190s than 109s, so if the 109 is a quality build, that would be my second vote...
Cool, you should see if you can put some Chilean AF markings on this one. I see the blue tailflash now, but I have no idea how to put an insignia (white star) on a control surface, but there might be a way to get it done...
Aaahhh, very cool! I was recently at the Virginia Beach Military Aircraft Museum and also got to inspect, up close, a bunch of the older prop airplanes.
Nice work, the insignia is a really nice touch
@Feanor Thanks!
@Brields95 true, so that's why you want the right landing gear arrangement, vs. the wing gear of the Hellcat.
I recommend you lengthen it out a bit for it to fly a little more stable and I think it'll even look a little more sleek.
Landing gear would be a nightmare to replicate, but if you don't do that, you might as well call your build an F6F Hellcat. Retract version of the Catalina has the same setup, I've seen a couple of builds that do a good job replicating it, but only a couple.
@lucas1998, La Pucara es un avion muy interesante, y puedo hacerlo en el future cercano. Puedo hablar con dificultad (me uso el traductor de Google con frequncia), pero puedo leer espanol mucho mas facilmente.
It's very short, how does it fly, is it stable?
@lucas1998 si, un avion legendario...
I would shorten the "bar" on the USAF insignia by about 30% (make it 70% of the current length). Also, when you use them, take note that USAF airplanes only wear the insignia on one wing per side, the left one, looking down or up. Counterbalance any yawing by placing one on top side and one on bottom. They'll be on opposite wings and should counter each other, like this: Waco Combat Glider. Point of star faces forward. Some airplanes, though, like the F-22 and F-15, wear them slightly slanted refer to a good pic when deciding how to place them. Many USAF airplanes have a "USAF" on the opposite (right) wing, which is another way of countering any yawing tendency. Also, many different coloring over the years, from colored to subdued, red white and blue to grey and even greens!
RAF insignia goes on both wings, top and bottom. Many more modern types have subdued red and blues, with no white present.
Nice replica. Love the Sturmovik!
An SP hypersonic research vehicle, I like it!
Nice build. The original RB-57 preceded the U-2, so it's technically a "predecessor" to the U-2. This version, the "F", is a later variant, NASA still flies it today, very cool!
Just reload it, it will automatically update. I just did it for Fine Tuner Mod
@Thefosh yes, that would be cool, you can build a successor off this one if you think you could make it work
@Caesarblack thanks, glad you like it. I didn't use indestructible wings or anything, so we'll see how it does at higher speeds...😬
@IparIzar thanks, glad you like it!
@Thefosh I thought it was a glider...what do you mean?
Great cannon...you should watch the BBC Romanovs miniseries, covers Tsar Alexander's battles against Napoleon, series available on Netflix.
@SMHrubix absolutely, great idea!
@FennVectorCWA ain't that the truth! Same here!
@AfterShock yeah, sorry about that. I'm pretty busy during the week, so I tend to miss out on challenges 😐
@Verterium ummm...I can confirm, you DO indeed have longest bio in SP
@IStoleYourMeme I'm also confused...😐
@Verterium thanks! @CRJ900Pilot thanks! Yeah, it's so simple just had to add some detail.
Yes, the GAR-1&2 missiles actually retracted into those pods, the original armament were unguided air to air rockets! I think it was an F-89 trying to shoot down an out of control Navy F6F target drone that set the Los Angeles forest on fire in the 1960s. Didn't manage to shoot down the F6F despite expending all of its rockets. The missiles came later...much more effective 😎
Very nice...
@FlyingHonda27 935, hah! You must have some other post getting you points!
Boom! Now you're at 890, so I guess it didn't really mean anything...X)
Nice airplane, more of an MD-11 as it seems to be a bit longer than a DC-10...however: The screenshot does NOT does not display this build as it should. Next time, recommend you "zoom in" more so the plane fills the entire screen...
+1Wow, very nice! I always have really liked the F-89...not sure why, maybe it's the clashing difference between it's straight wing, not very fast look and it's interceptor mission, determined despite the odds...the missiles are a great touch, as well.
Nice, unique subject. Makes me want to try my hand at one of the WWI pushers. There are "engines" out there, builds by other users, of radial engines (even though this one is a rotary engine aircraft) which would go great on a build such as this one...
Simply beautiful is more like it, this is one of my favorite 1930s racers. I probably would have stuck with the "warbird" style prop for this one, as I think it more closely matches the original (though everything about building replicas is an approximation)...nice job!
Nice work, especially the weapons bay. But have to ask: How come the missiles don't just hit and blow up the airplane when they're launched out of the weapons bay?
Very nice...
Nice paint job, looks like it took a long, tedious time to get right!
Also, why are you going for infinite fuel?
Well, I'm looking forward to the final result, hope you capture that gracefulness the Connie was known for!
Very pleasant to fly, nice and relaxed.
Agreed...nice
Oh my...let me get this right...you polled us this afternoon what build should you make, the consensus was Me-109 and, voila, 3 hours later, you're done?!?
@Sunnyskies thanks!
How'd you do the chrome colored canopy? I know there's some sort of XML mod, but don't know the routine...
A Rafael and an M-346 went on a date, one thing led to another, and...
Does it hover and/or land vertically?!?
@jamesPLANESii agreed; however, I was flying around on full power on the "good" engine. The key to this is to maintain your airspeed, just as it is in real life. You generally would expect that Vmc would be slower than your approach speed, so that if you did have an engine failure, the aircraft wouldn't spiral out of control until you reduce power on the good engine. But, as I said below, it's really difficult to compare your build against an actual C-46, so I cannot say, for certain, the degree of control is similar to real life or not. I just know that, generally, in SP, the yaw encountered in a single-engine situation acts as it does in real life (pulls the aircraft away from the side of the good engine). Also, the yaw can be counteracted by full rudder and bank into the good engine and, also, getting slow in a single-engine situation is BAD. Real life multi-engine pilots practice single-engine situations all the time because they're difficult emergency scenarios. I don't really think there's a "bug" here, more of a degree of how much yaw is introduced. Or, it could be, how much effect the airflow has (or doesn't have) on the airplane and control surfaces. The physics model is an approximation, not exact and there are many things not quite right in the simulation (flaps, supersonic effects), but I (and you) find it close enough to be engaging. Otherwise, you wouldn't be practicing single-engine failures on final approach! ;)
+1Do the Vantour, I've never seen one on the site. I've seen plenty of Me-109s, as well as at least one of the flying boat (BV 222, I believe). I will admit, though, I've seen a lot more good 190s than 109s, so if the 109 is a quality build, that would be my second vote...
Looks fairly accurate and seems to fly well enough (landing a VTOL in SP...well, we'll see). Which version are you building here?
Cool, you should see if you can put some Chilean AF markings on this one. I see the blue tailflash now, but I have no idea how to put an insignia (white star) on a control surface, but there might be a way to get it done...
Aaahhh, very cool! I was recently at the Virginia Beach Military Aircraft Museum and also got to inspect, up close, a bunch of the older prop airplanes.
Very nice...Belgium or Portugal?