@Mathieson so it seems you have some clever tricks up your sleeve for this one: can you confirm that you doubled the engines by mirroring them? Also, you managed to wrap the engines to provide realistic coloring, cool!
@AntiSphere I downloaded this three times to try and figure out the flaps, which are perfect. These actually lower the stall speed by 5 mph and bring the liftoff speed from 150 to 120 mph. However, there's no option to use VTOL for pitch control normally, so I assume this is a mod...? Can I get these, they're exactly what we all need in SP to build realistic planes...@AndrewGarrison this should be dead easy to include in the next update!
@RedstoneAeroAviation I think you miss the point...or maybe I did. I thought you said that the T3000 was inspired by the engines on the Dragon Rapide. I think that's probably not so, I think instead the T3000 was inspired by the C-130's turboprop engines. Or did I misunderstand?
@AircroftDesigin, that is tragic and I hadn't heard. Firefighters put their lives on the line every day, that's why an investigation which should discover the root cause of this accident will be held.
@PancakeAddiction possibly if that's what happened, but also read this: "Over the past five years, ASRS has received an average of
60 gear up landing reports per year. Gear up landings rarely
meet the damage or injury requirements for a National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report or investigation
and they are seldom reflected in general aviation safety
statistics. Nevertheless, no pilot wants to experience a
gear up landing. There is always the potential for a serious
outcome and the repair costs associated with any gear up
landing can be substantial." NASA Aviation Reporting System Report. Granted, the majority of the gear up landings are on smaller aircraft, but it's happened on larger aircraft as well.
It is too early to accurately tell what exactly happened, still lots of contradictory statements, recollections of panicked passengers, very interesting accounts of what the tower broadcast to the crew in the moments immediately prior to the accident. But here's my guess: THEY FORGOT TO EXTEND THE LANDING GEAR. It happens all the time. Not very often on a large aircraft which has alarms and reminders, but it still happens, much more often than you would think.
Nah...the biggest prop engine is a turboprop which puts out 3,000 hp. A turboprop is actually a jet engine which drives a propellor. The Dragon Rapide was powered by two DeHavilland Gipsy inline 6 cylinder engines which put out 200 hp each, which means it's an internal combustion engine...like your mom's minivan. The T3000 was actually modeled after these: C-130 turboprop
@Mrwhiskers85 wow, have never heard that, sounds like a stretch since the cockpit is at the end of the nose and you'd have to lift the cockpit with the nose in flight to do that. But, they flew a lot of sorties in WWII, so there might be a kernel of truth in that if something had gotten loose once and the glider was tumbling, perhaps the jeep broke loose out the front and the pilots went on to land somehow afterwards. There are plenty of stories of bomber crewmembers falling out of stricken bombers without parachutes who passed out, but somehow survived the fall only to spend the rest of the war in a prison camp.
@jamesPLANESii yes, it surely glides kind of like a rock, most of the early 1930s-40s gliders did that. I am sure the actual CG-4 glided a little better than my SP version, I've found the physics, while really good, aren't perfect, plus my CG-4 here is a bit down-sized as I wanted it to be the same 2/3 scale as my C-47...the reason why that one is scaled down because I wanted the engines to be the correct proportion. Most of my builds are that way.
@Booster456 yes, agreed, but turrets on most airplanes have that problem. In the -1 (Dash-1, an airplane's flight manual), it would warn the pilot or gunner not to shoot the tail off! In your instructions, you might warn the user to not shoot the tail or props off! Look at my B-24, here, it does the same thing as yours: B-24
Here you go, my entry: X-4B Dagger. It uses all stock, UNmodified parts and engine, but still reaches 130,000', I might add! Just full power, hold on deck until 800 mph+, then pull up 80 degrees nose high.
@Mathieson you can put the insignia on the bottom of the opposite wing, as it is in real life. Markings are finicky, though, and if that doesn't work, then go ahead and try another trick: Put it on the opposite wing, but then color it the same color as the wing and it's barely noticeable.
@BurritoAviation, I'll send you a plane later which can reach 100,000', unmodded engines. It zoom climbs to 110,000', I remember from the last time I flew it. I don't think it'll win the challenge because it isn't the coolest looking creation, but it'll get to the threshold without modded engines (the hard way...;)).
It almost looks like a Gloster Meteor...have you considered making it a Meteor instead of an "Me-263", which was the designation of one of the actual rocket-powered interceptors developed from the Me-163?
Sure it may be a little nose-heavy (and it's only slightly so), but nearly all planes are nose-heavy so they pitch down if they stall...it's not a problem if you use the trim slider...left slider, move it down abou half way and it flies hands off!
Put a top turret on it, just behind the cockpit. It should be easy enough for you to put a rotating turret up there. All the B-24s had them and they gave the plane a distinctive "hunchback" look. Second, move the insignia from the tail to the wings...no USAF roundels (or any roundels I can think of) were ever put on the tail. Be sure to turn them so the star is pointed up (forward). For some reason 3/4 of the users who put U.S. markings on their planes get that wrong.
@Cehhamilton oh, no worries, I wasn't offended by any means. Glad you like my builds. I have been working on this off and on for about 6 months, so it's taken me awhile to get where I am. Which Lear, 35?
@AmerigoB don't worry about the part count, check out my page to see what I mean. Many (but not all) of those players who build planes with 300, 500 or more parts frequently don't get something right, like the canopy scale, or the landing gear isn't right or the markings are on the tail instead of the wings...something which ruins the whole thing. Or it doesn't fly correctly, which is a disappointment, or mobile users can't fly it at all, which is another big disappointment for those of us who love our phones. I rarely exceed 200 parts, build them all on my phone, but I have to triage which details I'm going to build and which I will leave out. The bigger and more significant the detail will have a better chance of being included, the smaller details that one cannot see easily will probably be left off. Examples: The pitot tube on the F-100, the tip tanks on the F-104. Ones I might leave off: Some of the antennas, which are pretty small. Wires...no one notices those at all.
Hey, @AmerigoB, what are you talking about? I looked at all your posts and your planes are fine. They're a bit more whimsical than what I might create, but that's your build style, embrace it. As for your B-17, here's what I do with replica builds: I find a good "3-view" picture on Google images, Google "B-17 3-view" and you'll see multiple examples. I print out a 3-view I can use and use it for measurements on my airplanes to ensure I get the scale right. Sometimes, components like the engines or landing gear are the controls for the sizes of the other components, such as wings and fuselages. Hope this helps!
Not all posts or creations are equal, sorry to say, so equality of outcome (high point totals in a short amount of time, or ever) isn't going to happen. Neither should it. While it is sometimes a popularity contest and certainly not perfect, I think the users do a pretty good job in highlighting the better creations. Yes, the higher point users have amassed a following, as they should, and that facilitates the collection of more and more points. However, the Spotlight system, I think, is starting to highlight those newer players with worthwhile creations, but it may take a little time. I know I take the time to go to the "Hottest" or "Newest" section to Spotlight those creations I appreciate and I hope everyone else is spending some time doing this as well. I'm sorry you're disgruntled, but all users here needs a little patience; I know I've had to be patient, I've been around for about 6 months, active, and I'm just over 4,000 points.
This is nifty, but instead of burying an engine in the fuse to provide a little deadweight, why didn't you simply use the standard ballast function under the utilities functions?
@RedstoneAeroAviation correct, that's the T3000, it has the inlet, for the jet engine that drives the prop
@AntiSphere wilco
@AntiSphere thanks!
@Mathieson so it seems you have some clever tricks up your sleeve for this one: can you confirm that you doubled the engines by mirroring them? Also, you managed to wrap the engines to provide realistic coloring, cool!
@AntiSphere this would give this option to all users, sorry as its one of those things that makes your planes special! 😕
@AntiSphere I downloaded this three times to try and figure out the flaps, which are perfect. These actually lower the stall speed by 5 mph and bring the liftoff speed from 150 to 120 mph. However, there's no option to use VTOL for pitch control normally, so I assume this is a mod...? Can I get these, they're exactly what we all need in SP to build realistic planes...@AndrewGarrison this should be dead easy to include in the next update!
@RedstoneAeroAviation I think you miss the point...or maybe I did. I thought you said that the T3000 was inspired by the engines on the Dragon Rapide. I think that's probably not so, I think instead the T3000 was inspired by the C-130's turboprop engines. Or did I misunderstand?
Pretty good!
Fantastic! That's all I can say.
Nice!
@AircroftDesigin, that is tragic and I hadn't heard. Firefighters put their lives on the line every day, that's why an investigation which should discover the root cause of this accident will be held.
@PancakeAddiction possibly if that's what happened, but also read this: "Over the past five years, ASRS has received an average of
60 gear up landing reports per year. Gear up landings rarely
meet the damage or injury requirements for a National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report or investigation
and they are seldom reflected in general aviation safety
statistics. Nevertheless, no pilot wants to experience a
gear up landing. There is always the potential for a serious
outcome and the repair costs associated with any gear up
landing can be substantial." NASA Aviation Reporting System Report. Granted, the majority of the gear up landings are on smaller aircraft, but it's happened on larger aircraft as well.
Good news is that there were (apparently) no casualties, at least that's what the media is saying.
It is too early to accurately tell what exactly happened, still lots of contradictory statements, recollections of panicked passengers, very interesting accounts of what the tower broadcast to the crew in the moments immediately prior to the accident. But here's my guess: THEY FORGOT TO EXTEND THE LANDING GEAR. It happens all the time. Not very often on a large aircraft which has alarms and reminders, but it still happens, much more often than you would think.
Reminiscent of a 1950s British fighter...am I allowed to say an airplane is beautiful, because this one is! Very nice!
Nah...the biggest prop engine is a turboprop which puts out 3,000 hp. A turboprop is actually a jet engine which drives a propellor. The Dragon Rapide was powered by two DeHavilland Gipsy inline 6 cylinder engines which put out 200 hp each, which means it's an internal combustion engine...like your mom's minivan. The T3000 was actually modeled after these: C-130 turboprop
@Mrwhiskers85 wow, have never heard that, sounds like a stretch since the cockpit is at the end of the nose and you'd have to lift the cockpit with the nose in flight to do that. But, they flew a lot of sorties in WWII, so there might be a kernel of truth in that if something had gotten loose once and the glider was tumbling, perhaps the jeep broke loose out the front and the pilots went on to land somehow afterwards. There are plenty of stories of bomber crewmembers falling out of stricken bombers without parachutes who passed out, but somehow survived the fall only to spend the rest of the war in a prison camp.
This thing is spectacular! That gear, so intricate, did you scratch build the engines?
@jamesPLANESii yes, it surely glides kind of like a rock, most of the early 1930s-40s gliders did that. I am sure the actual CG-4 glided a little better than my SP version, I've found the physics, while really good, aren't perfect, plus my CG-4 here is a bit down-sized as I wanted it to be the same 2/3 scale as my C-47...the reason why that one is scaled down because I wanted the engines to be the correct proportion. Most of my builds are that way.
@Booster456 yes, agreed, but turrets on most airplanes have that problem. In the -1 (Dash-1, an airplane's flight manual), it would warn the pilot or gunner not to shoot the tail off! In your instructions, you might warn the user to not shoot the tail or props off! Look at my B-24, here, it does the same thing as yours: B-24
@littleleeches, correction, I did use one previously modded part: the speedbrakes, they won't normally attach to the wings!
@littleleeches, lots of practice. This isn't modded in any way, I don't even use the fine tuner mod.
@FennVectorCWA nope, completely stock!
It even flies beautifully, few enough parts so that my iPhone handles it with no lag, fantastic!
Here you go, my entry: X-4B Dagger. It uses all stock, UNmodified parts and engine, but still reaches 130,000', I might add! Just full power, hold on deck until 800 mph+, then pull up 80 degrees nose high.
Yes, pitch up into a parabolic trajectory vs. maintain level flight at or above 100,000'
Wow, almost forgot: Again, thank you, thank you to @thealban for the markings!!!
I wish I could spotlight this one, but instead: @AndrewGarrison this should be a feature!
Wow, very nice! Did you use calipers to ensure the proportions were spot on, 'cause they are!
@FennVectorCWA awesome, glad you enjoy it!
@FennVectorCWA agree, that would be totally awesome if you could figure that out! If you do, please let me know.
@Mathieson you can put the insignia on the bottom of the opposite wing, as it is in real life. Markings are finicky, though, and if that doesn't work, then go ahead and try another trick: Put it on the opposite wing, but then color it the same color as the wing and it's barely noticeable.
Wow, very nice! I especially like the gear and I'm working on the same type mechanism for my Catalina.
Nice work! Especially for 45 points total, what is this your second plane?
@BurritoAviation, I'll send you a plane later which can reach 100,000', unmodded engines. It zoom climbs to 110,000', I remember from the last time I flew it. I don't think it'll win the challenge because it isn't the coolest looking creation, but it'll get to the threshold without modded engines (the hard way...;)).
Level flight or zoom climb? Modded engines permissible?
The engine's modded on this one, is it not?
It almost looks like a Gloster Meteor...have you considered making it a Meteor instead of an "Me-263", which was the designation of one of the actual rocket-powered interceptors developed from the Me-163?
whoop, sorry, the RIGHT slider is for trim...
Sure it may be a little nose-heavy (and it's only slightly so), but nearly all planes are nose-heavy so they pitch down if they stall...it's not a problem if you use the trim slider...left slider, move it down abou half way and it flies hands off!
Put a top turret on it, just behind the cockpit. It should be easy enough for you to put a rotating turret up there. All the B-24s had them and they gave the plane a distinctive "hunchback" look. Second, move the insignia from the tail to the wings...no USAF roundels (or any roundels I can think of) were ever put on the tail. Be sure to turn them so the star is pointed up (forward). For some reason 3/4 of the users who put U.S. markings on their planes get that wrong.
@Cehhamilton oh, no worries, I wasn't offended by any means. Glad you like my builds. I have been working on this off and on for about 6 months, so it's taken me awhile to get where I am. Which Lear, 35?
I think I just tripped him over to gold!
@AmerigoB don't worry about the part count, check out my page to see what I mean. Many (but not all) of those players who build planes with 300, 500 or more parts frequently don't get something right, like the canopy scale, or the landing gear isn't right or the markings are on the tail instead of the wings...something which ruins the whole thing. Or it doesn't fly correctly, which is a disappointment, or mobile users can't fly it at all, which is another big disappointment for those of us who love our phones. I rarely exceed 200 parts, build them all on my phone, but I have to triage which details I'm going to build and which I will leave out. The bigger and more significant the detail will have a better chance of being included, the smaller details that one cannot see easily will probably be left off. Examples: The pitot tube on the F-100, the tip tanks on the F-104. Ones I might leave off: Some of the antennas, which are pretty small. Wires...no one notices those at all.
Hey, @AmerigoB, what are you talking about? I looked at all your posts and your planes are fine. They're a bit more whimsical than what I might create, but that's your build style, embrace it. As for your B-17, here's what I do with replica builds: I find a good "3-view" picture on Google images, Google "B-17 3-view" and you'll see multiple examples. I print out a 3-view I can use and use it for measurements on my airplanes to ensure I get the scale right. Sometimes, components like the engines or landing gear are the controls for the sizes of the other components, such as wings and fuselages. Hope this helps!
Not all posts or creations are equal, sorry to say, so equality of outcome (high point totals in a short amount of time, or ever) isn't going to happen. Neither should it. While it is sometimes a popularity contest and certainly not perfect, I think the users do a pretty good job in highlighting the better creations. Yes, the higher point users have amassed a following, as they should, and that facilitates the collection of more and more points. However, the Spotlight system, I think, is starting to highlight those newer players with worthwhile creations, but it may take a little time. I know I take the time to go to the "Hottest" or "Newest" section to Spotlight those creations I appreciate and I hope everyone else is spending some time doing this as well. I'm sorry you're disgruntled, but all users here needs a little patience; I know I've had to be patient, I've been around for about 6 months, active, and I'm just over 4,000 points.
This is nifty, but instead of burying an engine in the fuse to provide a little deadweight, why didn't you simply use the standard ballast function under the utilities functions?
What's wrong with it? Does it not glide? The real shuttle is an unpowered glider when it comes in for landing...
It's pretty good, but I have two suggestions for improving this one, want to hear them?
One of my faves!