@M4A1Sherman76mm make a small fuselage, say .25 deep by 1.00 wide. Hook on pylons (or simply structural panels) with bombs attached, then resize the fuselage to be larger and the bombs will submerge in the fuse. When you release them, they will come out of the bottom of the fuselage. The best way I know to do an internal bomb bay as to do doors (especially curved ones) would be difficult to get right.
Boy, you have to keep this thing above 300 mph, otherwise it will stall, wing drop and spin into the water just short of the LZ. Also, the attitude indicator is completely wonky, but it sure is cute!
I actually drove one of these, except the one I drove was a blue and silver 1985 TA, pretty much the exact same car...looked good, but typical mid-1980s GM, kinda rattly. We really enjoyed it, though!
@LuKorp , you have plenty of airplanes that would make good subjects for this, plus a VTOL airplane! I have the ACMECo1940 one, plus another, you're third in line. It might be a few days. Tag me on the airplane you want me to eval (how they fly is more important than how they look and I really prefer evaluating fictional airplanes) and I'll get to it soon enough.
I have the ACMECo1940 one, plus another, you're third in line. It might be a few days. Tag me on the airplane you want me to eval (how they fly is more important than how they look and I really prefer evaluating fictional airplanes) and I'll get to it soon enough.
@LuKorp yes. The users requested I do a pilot eval on these airplanes. This is the second one evaluated. Himynameiswalrus is next, followed by ACMECo1940.
I was able to hit the Beast from 25,000' with my B-47 and its 4 bombs. I think one hit, but I was so high and fast (600 mph), that I never even entered the flotilla's engagement zone. The carrier must have had a big magnet on it that day, because I haven't been able to replicate the feat again, even though I've come close a couple of times!
@Himynameiswalrus Yes with caveat: I use my phone, it's handled a 250 part plane before, so I should be able to do this one. Will have to see how it handles the high engine count, so I'll try.
@General360 thanks, glad you like it. Fun little project, maybe I can do a few more. I had to keep unspawning the AI planes to eliminate most of the lag on my iPhone, though!
Lots of modern films here, Top Gun a clear winner, so is Pearl Harbor (believe it or not). I personally recommend the older films: if anyone wants to see some great flying classics, watch: Twelve O'Clock High (USAAF B-17s vs. Luftwaffe in WWII. Also a great leadership portrayal. Sixty Seconds Over Tokyo, Lt Col Jimmy Doolittle leads 16 B-25 medium bombers off a US Navy carrier in the first post-Pearl Harbor raid on Japan. True story and the carrier launch scene still stands the hair up on the back of my neck. Strategic Air Command with Jimmy Stewart, story of a recalled pro baseball player to fly the B-36 and then transitions to the B-47, the world's first swept-wing jet bomber. Look them up, slower pace than today's movies, but should give a great feel of what flying was like years ago.
Like @General360, I've put engines on action groups. That way I can evaluate the game physics with my Duchess. It actually emulates single engine flight pretty well, with a loss of control, yaw and roll if you try and fly too slow with a failed engine.
Also, open up the CG tool, and shift fuel around in the fuselage to change the CG. Click on a fuse piece, hit the gear icon to open part options. Adjust fuel in there. The red line (CG) should be ahead of the blue line (Center of Lift)...
Interesting. If you move the main gear back towards the middle of the fuselage, make the wings much longer and straighter, as well as the horizontal stab, it might make a closer repro of the real thing... Also, try some color, use the "Custom" palette, make the main color for the gear black, "Trim 1" (tires) black as well, "Trim 2" white, which is the gear struts, I think.
Hey, if you're over 100 points (or even 50 points), you've stuck with it for a bit...he's probably talking about users posting their first airplanes, which are learning experiences for their creators. However, I like the noobs as they provide revenue which keeps SP in business, our community alive and improvements/updates coming. I agree some mentoring and cultivation, upvotes for the better new builds will go a long way to growing the next generations. I know I got a great boost from a few high-ranked players noticing the first few of my second generation of creations. Remember that we were all noobs at one point or the other and we're all noobs compared to @KingDeadshot, @ForeverPie, @DeezDucks, @BaconEggs and @Delphinus (sorry @dzulfikar you're "only" 14K+ points :) Another suggestion: Surf the "Newest" page from time to time, upvote the better creations by newer users and perhaps follow a few of them.
Such nit-picking over the picture, but here's a suggestion: The P-38 should be flying nose-down in relation with the F-22, which will be flying at a higher AoA (nose up). The P-38 maxed out flies 400+ mph level, while the F-22 can do Mach 2+ (I think). Anyway, the P-38 would probably be flying fast for what it is and the F-22 more slowly for what it is...but it's a nit-pick as the pic recreation is pretty spectacular on its own.
Oh, the gear is close enough. Nice detail, looks like a lot of effort went into this one. Just wish it was mobile-friendly. Check my P-38 out, much simpler, less accurate, so kudos to you!
@MasterManufacturingCo I will concede the following: The Ho-229 is naturally radar evading, boasting a 20% reduction in signature over the Me-109, so it has "stealth characteristics". I, however, would NEVER go to war in a Ho-229 over an F-117, because it's radar characteristics would just get its pilot killed in this day and age. It is debatable and the point of the Nat Geo doc that it's designers intended for it to evade radar...ok, interesting theory. I'm not convinced. Also, I took the picture I use in my icon. It's a selfie in a single seat airplane. Do the math, use your brain and I'm qualified to debate these points.
@MasterManufacturingCo OK, so I went back to look up the Ho-229 again, just to be sure I had it right wrt stealth tech. You probably saw the Nat Geo doc "Hitler's Stealth Fighter", which I started to watch. After the first few minutes where they said: "kept in a secret government warehouse", I nearly choked on my coffee. The airplane is being restored at the Garber facility in N VA (Smithsonian Institute), same people who run the National Air and Space Museum. So, the doc is sensationalistic to start. My points prior to getting off the soap box:
1. Northrop Grumman Aerospace (NGA) and others are interested in the Ho-229, the same reason why they're interested in the YB-49 or other early flying wings. The B-2 and the B-21 are flying wings and the shape is naturally radar evading. They want to investigate if anyone has stumbled across a technique that will help this nation's stealth efforts.
2. They make a big deal about the Ho-229 being wood...but don't mention that the Axis were turning to wood as it was easily obtained as metals were becoming hard to acquire during the latter stages of WWII. The Luftwaffe's Emergency Fighter Project, the British Mosquito and many other WWII aircraft were wood for that reason.
3. NGA investigated the designer's claim that he used charcoal impregnated wood materials as a radar evading material, but NGA never found evidence of charcoal in the design.
4. What caused me to spout out concerning the P-38 not being stealthy is the description of this particular build...modmaster claimed the P-38 was a "stealth bomber", which, clearly it never was.
I can go on all day on this, trust me, you have no idea who I am where I've been or how old I am. I assure you I know what I'm talking about. I yield the floor to you...
Very nice, shows expertise far in excess of your point total!
@M4A1Sherman76mm make a small fuselage, say .25 deep by 1.00 wide. Hook on pylons (or simply structural panels) with bombs attached, then resize the fuselage to be larger and the bombs will submerge in the fuse. When you release them, they will come out of the bottom of the fuselage. The best way I know to do an internal bomb bay as to do doors (especially curved ones) would be difficult to get right.
Boy, you have to keep this thing above 300 mph, otherwise it will stall, wing drop and spin into the water just short of the LZ. Also, the attitude indicator is completely wonky, but it sure is cute!
Nice, original subject.
Excellent, very nice. I like the build style, elegantly simple and fun to fly.
@Liquidfox thanks!
VTOL trainer!
Gee, no flying movies?
@General360 tagged
@General360 yes it is, sorry thought I tagged you
@General360 did you see your Cessna 210 review?
@Mynameiswalrus, enjoy!
@Stampede perhaps. I was actually thinking about that one and how to capture the facets. However, let me finish working on the B-24 first!
I actually drove one of these, except the one I drove was a blue and silver 1985 TA, pretty much the exact same car...looked good, but typical mid-1980s GM, kinda rattly. We really enjoyed it, though!
Totally agree!
@LuKorp , you have plenty of airplanes that would make good subjects for this, plus a VTOL airplane! I have the ACMECo1940 one, plus another, you're third in line. It might be a few days. Tag me on the airplane you want me to eval (how they fly is more important than how they look and I really prefer evaluating fictional airplanes) and I'll get to it soon enough.
I have the ACMECo1940 one, plus another, you're third in line. It might be a few days. Tag me on the airplane you want me to eval (how they fly is more important than how they look and I really prefer evaluating fictional airplanes) and I'll get to it soon enough.
@LuKorp yes. The users requested I do a pilot eval on these airplanes. This is the second one evaluated. Himynameiswalrus is next, followed by ACMECo1940.
I was able to hit the Beast from 25,000' with my B-47 and its 4 bombs. I think one hit, but I was so high and fast (600 mph), that I never even entered the flotilla's engagement zone. The carrier must have had a big magnet on it that day, because I haven't been able to replicate the feat again, even though I've come close a couple of times!
I agree with @MasterMindIndustriesAndAviationCorporation, project one would be hilarious!
Sure, I'll take a look, it'll be a few hours, is that ok?
A nice, simple B-25, like it a lot.
@Himynameiswalrus Yes with caveat: I use my phone, it's handled a 250 part plane before, so I should be able to do this one. Will have to see how it handles the high engine count, so I'll try.
@ACMECo1940 sure, you're third in line, so it might take me a couple of days to clear the queue, is that OK? If so, just tag me in this post.
@Himynameiswalrus absolutely, which plane?
@General360 will do, is it your Cessna 210?
@General360 thanks, glad you like it. Fun little project, maybe I can do a few more. I had to keep unspawning the AI planes to eliminate most of the lag on my iPhone, though!
And, yes I love Top Gun as well!
BTW, the combat footage used in Twelve O'Clock High is actual combat footage filmed by USAAF combat camera crews.
Lots of modern films here, Top Gun a clear winner, so is Pearl Harbor (believe it or not). I personally recommend the older films: if anyone wants to see some great flying classics, watch: Twelve O'Clock High (USAAF B-17s vs. Luftwaffe in WWII. Also a great leadership portrayal. Sixty Seconds Over Tokyo, Lt Col Jimmy Doolittle leads 16 B-25 medium bombers off a US Navy carrier in the first post-Pearl Harbor raid on Japan. True story and the carrier launch scene still stands the hair up on the back of my neck. Strategic Air Command with Jimmy Stewart, story of a recalled pro baseball player to fly the B-36 and then transitions to the B-47, the world's first swept-wing jet bomber. Look them up, slower pace than today's movies, but should give a great feel of what flying was like years ago.
Even with the trim set (VTOL slider down)? I also second what Delphinus is telling you, shift the CoM closer to CoL
@General360 probably will have to download it PC, standby will try it
@General360 hmmm, I would have thought that thing would fly on half power, but it is plenty heavy...
Sorry, I'm going to ask the stupid question: have you tried more blades, longer and broader blades?
+1Like @General360, I've put engines on action groups. That way I can evaluate the game physics with my Duchess. It actually emulates single engine flight pretty well, with a loss of control, yaw and roll if you try and fly too slow with a failed engine.
Wow, gorgeous and spot-on
No prob, trying to figure this out is a bit frustrating, but I'll get it done.
That should change the stability.
+1Also, open up the CG tool, and shift fuel around in the fuselage to change the CG. Click on a fuse piece, hit the gear icon to open part options. Adjust fuel in there. The red line (CG) should be ahead of the blue line (Center of Lift)...
+1Interesting. If you move the main gear back towards the middle of the fuselage, make the wings much longer and straighter, as well as the horizontal stab, it might make a closer repro of the real thing... Also, try some color, use the "Custom" palette, make the main color for the gear black, "Trim 1" (tires) black as well, "Trim 2" white, which is the gear struts, I think.
+1Hey, if you're over 100 points (or even 50 points), you've stuck with it for a bit...he's probably talking about users posting their first airplanes, which are learning experiences for their creators. However, I like the noobs as they provide revenue which keeps SP in business, our community alive and improvements/updates coming. I agree some mentoring and cultivation, upvotes for the better new builds will go a long way to growing the next generations. I know I got a great boost from a few high-ranked players noticing the first few of my second generation of creations. Remember that we were all noobs at one point or the other and we're all noobs compared to @KingDeadshot, @ForeverPie, @DeezDucks, @BaconEggs and @Delphinus (sorry @dzulfikar you're "only" 14K+ points :) Another suggestion: Surf the "Newest" page from time to time, upvote the better creations by newer users and perhaps follow a few of them.
Such nit-picking over the picture, but here's a suggestion: The P-38 should be flying nose-down in relation with the F-22, which will be flying at a higher AoA (nose up). The P-38 maxed out flies 400+ mph level, while the F-22 can do Mach 2+ (I think). Anyway, the P-38 would probably be flying fast for what it is and the F-22 more slowly for what it is...but it's a nit-pick as the pic recreation is pretty spectacular on its own.
Wow, nice!
Oh, the gear is close enough. Nice detail, looks like a lot of effort went into this one. Just wish it was mobile-friendly. Check my P-38 out, much simpler, less accurate, so kudos to you!
+1Sorry, first post below: "The lockheed p-38 lightning was a stealth bomber used in ww2"
Hmmm, correction: original description stated it was a "stealth bomber", it's been removed, I see.
It doesn't need a description, it's a thing of beauty.
@MasterManufacturingCo I will concede the following: The Ho-229 is naturally radar evading, boasting a 20% reduction in signature over the Me-109, so it has "stealth characteristics". I, however, would NEVER go to war in a Ho-229 over an F-117, because it's radar characteristics would just get its pilot killed in this day and age. It is debatable and the point of the Nat Geo doc that it's designers intended for it to evade radar...ok, interesting theory. I'm not convinced. Also, I took the picture I use in my icon. It's a selfie in a single seat airplane. Do the math, use your brain and I'm qualified to debate these points.
@MasterManufacturingCo OK, so I went back to look up the Ho-229 again, just to be sure I had it right wrt stealth tech. You probably saw the Nat Geo doc "Hitler's Stealth Fighter", which I started to watch. After the first few minutes where they said: "kept in a secret government warehouse", I nearly choked on my coffee. The airplane is being restored at the Garber facility in N VA (Smithsonian Institute), same people who run the National Air and Space Museum. So, the doc is sensationalistic to start. My points prior to getting off the soap box:
1. Northrop Grumman Aerospace (NGA) and others are interested in the Ho-229, the same reason why they're interested in the YB-49 or other early flying wings. The B-2 and the B-21 are flying wings and the shape is naturally radar evading. They want to investigate if anyone has stumbled across a technique that will help this nation's stealth efforts.
2. They make a big deal about the Ho-229 being wood...but don't mention that the Axis were turning to wood as it was easily obtained as metals were becoming hard to acquire during the latter stages of WWII. The Luftwaffe's Emergency Fighter Project, the British Mosquito and many other WWII aircraft were wood for that reason.
3. NGA investigated the designer's claim that he used charcoal impregnated wood materials as a radar evading material, but NGA never found evidence of charcoal in the design.
4. What caused me to spout out concerning the P-38 not being stealthy is the description of this particular build...modmaster claimed the P-38 was a "stealth bomber", which, clearly it never was.
I can go on all day on this, trust me, you have no idea who I am where I've been or how old I am. I assure you I know what I'm talking about. I yield the floor to you...
@Stampede Ok, Curtis Helldiver would be an interesting subject, then. Don't think I've ever seen one here.